Kiwiblog Moderation Discussion #1

September 2nd, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

As I previously indicated, I plan to make some changes around moderation of comments effective 1 October.  While I am firm in deciding to make change (and it is my blog) I am keen for feedback on various changes that may or may not be made. I plan to do this via a series of posts discussing some issues.

I still want this as a forum for robust debate, and knocking back of ill informed views. But I want it to be a place where more people are keen to engage.

The two initial issues are this

1. Should there be more moderation in posts on specific issues and a lesser standard of moderation in General Debate?

My thinking here is that people go to General Debate just to have a vigorous exchange of views on, well pretty much everything. Only hard core readers go into it, unlike other posts where people with an interest in the topic may want to go in and contribute.

So as a way to still allow people to vigorously debate issues and personalities, General Debate would have very light moderation (defamation, extreme abuse ruled out only). However all the other posts each day would have tighter moderation,  with comments that are disruptive to the discussion earning some sort of sanction (which I’ll discuss in a separate post) or being edited or deleted.

To me it seems this would still allow rather robust debate in one area (think of it as a quarantine), and more focused debate in the other posts.

2. Should greater leeway be given to people who post under their own names, or are clearly identifiable?

My default thinking is that if someone is willing to make comments under their own name, and accept the consequences of those comments being attributed to them, then they should get greater leeway to comment robustly (short of defamation or over the top abuse). The fact they have to “wear” their comments tends to act as a incentive to be less inflammatory.

However I am a strong believer that people should be able to post under a pseudonym here. Many people have a very valid reasons to not want to post under their name – for work or family reasons. However if you choose not to use your actual name, should there be less tolerance of comments where (for example) you may attack actual identified people. It is a bit unfair to those who do post publicly, to have comments made by those who won’t accept responsibility under their name for comments.

This would not be a black and white situation where those posting under their names can get away with saying anything at all, and those using a pseudonym can’t criticise others at all. It is more than in situations where the comments are marginal, those posting under their actual names would get the benefit of the doubt more.

Welcome feedback on these two issues. I’ve also got two polls in the sidebar so you can vote on them, if you don’t want to comment. I recognise again that some people may think there should be no change at all, but there will be change.

Tags:

286 Responses to “Kiwiblog Moderation Discussion #1”

  1. dime (10,212 comments) says:

    Stronger moderation in threads outside of the GD is needed.

    Especially the resident lefties who’s sole aim is to deflect eg “national did the same thing in 1964..”

    Also, the ones who hold a grudge (yeah i do it too). eg someone makes a good point and the follow up is “yeah but you believe in god blah blah” or whatever.

    Just be careful who you choose as moderators. The last thing you want is to end up with an idiot like “pete” from whale oil.

    Or a PG.

    Also, Dime is my real name :D

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nigel (493 comments) says:

    I think wise changes.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. flash2846 (289 comments) says:

    1) Moderation should be the same for all posts I reckon. And silliness that would suggest to a new Kiwiblog visitor that we are all for example racists should be deleted. Just my opinion.

    2) I would like to see those who post under their real name be given greater leeway. Courage of their convictions – all good. Again, just my opinion.

    P.S. David – love your blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. MT_Tinman (3,315 comments) says:

    I agree with Dime, moderation of threads outside of GD is needed.

    Also agree with his comments on choosing moderators.

    As one who comments under a pseudonym ( because I’ve been MT Tinman for so long I doubt anyone would recognise my real name) I don’t think holding those using (supposedly) their real name to a lesser standard is a good idea.

    If we must have moderation simply rule out unwarranted personal attacks – they won’t be mourned.

    One request DPF; Please do not moderate to the extent that comments must pass moderation before being published, it is the immediacy of Kiwiblog that helps make it the best blog in NZ by far

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Lance (2,712 comments) says:

    @dime
    “Dime is my real name ”

    So did like your parents not like you?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    I think the current system works fine. Although, those who refer to themselves in the third person should face heavier sanctions.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. hj (7,156 comments) says:

    1) Moderation should be the same for all posts I reckon. And silliness that would suggest to a new Kiwiblog visitor that we are all for example racists should be deleted. Just my opinion.
    ——–
    the problem with that is that vested interests have an interest in calling people racist

    As demonstrated here:

    Last week, pro-development political consultant Bob Ransford used his column in the Vancouver Sun to draw a line between the debate over the city’s chronic housing unaffordability and anti-Chinese bigotry.

    Ransford, himself a former developer, even warned that raising questions about how to deal with the issue begins to “tread very close” to the racist anti-Chinese head tax.
    Speaking as an ethnic Chinese new immigrant to Vancouver, forgive me if I don’t kow-tow in gratitude, as Ransford tries to hose down timely debate on the impact of foreign money here. When a rich, white political consultant cries “racist” about Vancouver’s most pressing issue of equity and social justice, in a city with one of the lowest median incomes in Canada, it reeks of the worst kind of opportunism.

    http://www.scmp.com/comment/blogs/article/1525043/vancouver-real-estate-cheerleader-crying-racist-dont-bother-kow-towing
    It’s a big issue at the mo (he who pays the piper calling the tune) I wonder about The Christchurch Press?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Lance (2,712 comments) says:

    Agree with the concept proposed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. publicwatchdog (3,125 comments) says:

    As someone who ALWAYS posts under my own name – it’s my experience that those who can’t ‘handle the jandal’ when it comes to debating the issues – resort to personal attacks and often defamatory smears to try and discredit the person.

    I’ve had quite a lot of that :)

    However – I use Kiwiblog as a political barometer.

    You don’t cop the flak unless you’re over the target?

    Besides – after Kiwiblog – the Parliamentary ‘bear pit’ is going to be a walk in the park :)

    And full credit again David for practicing what you preach regarding ‘freedom of expression’ .

    You have never banned or threatened to ban me from Kiwiblog.

    Thanks for that.

    Kind regards

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. balletgirl68 (19 comments) says:

    I think option 1 is pretty sound.
    I’ve enjoyed being online here as a newbie and wouldn’t want it to change too much.
    At least the majority of people commenting on here, is of like mind, the odd maverick doesn’t really worry me. Usually they get bored or chased off with mediation if they become too abusive.
    Like flash2846 I love your blog!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. fishe (166 comments) says:

    Point 1 is great, although the clear violations still need dealing to. Also perhaps add something to the title of the General Debate posts to reflect this, e.g. “open thread” or “not moderated”

    Point 2 makes a lot of sense too. Although it seems most if not all of the real name users don’t write problematic comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. adze (2,130 comments) says:

    Apart from the occasional egregious abuse, i think they main requirement for moderation is to prevent thread jacking. I can’t speak for anyone else but I find it is really annoying and counterproductive.
    As far as real name use goes, I don’t have a problem with them getting greater leeway with their posting on contentious or potentially defamatory matters, but those names ought to be verified with yourself, similar to the “verified” status on several social networks. I still think they ought not be able to thread jack, however.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. rouppe (983 comments) says:

    I think stronger moderation is needed. In looking at some posts here, the comments seem to more and more degenerate into pointlessly abusive remarks.

    Originally I was going to say maybe adjust moderation on the basis of how long-term they’ve been, but that just gets too difficult I think, so accross-the-board is probably easier to understand and execute.

    I agree with Dime regarding choice of moderators. Some on whaleoil are on a power trip.

    Not in favour of the real-name thing. Case in point I think is the WINZ staffer who is now under investigation at work based on his comments in whaleoil around beneficiaries. He took steps to make sure he was distanced from his workplace and as such my view is he can hold whatever personal views he likes. The test for him is whether those personal views crept into the work he was doing at the ministry. That is the only test that should apply. So being able to maintain arms-length from your workplace identity I think is important.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    It looks tricky trying to differentiate between people with pseudonyms versus those who are identified. As one of the latter it is an issue when someone abuses anonymity to smear, harass and repetitively lie, as some do here. But it could be unfair to those responsibly using pseudonyms (and many are in that category) if they were slapped with different standards because of a few who abuse the privilege.

    Some pseudonyms are used simply as online handles where the actual identity is known to some at least (although despite some of them thinking they are well known many readers won’t know someone outed themselves years ago). David is frequently referred to as DPF – casual readers may not actually know who is being referred to.

    As DPF says many have good reasons for using pseudonyms. It’s just a few that use anonymity as a way of making cowardly personal attacks. I think targeting behaviour is more important than differentiating between being identifiable or not.

    Note that some of the best commenters here use pseudonyms.

    It’s up to DPF as to what he does to target the worst of the abusers, but as an online community I think it’s also the responsibility of commenters here to help to uphold decent standards of debate. That can be difficult in a political environment where people can be very one-sided in how they view abuse.

    But I think we all owe it to DPF to help foster a better environment here – being able to debate robustly in politics is important but a reasonable degree of decency should be enforced through community responsibility, peer pressure and whatever moderation DPF wants to use.

    If we were collectively more respectful of DPF and of others and took responsibility for promoting a more decent forum then enforced moderation should be far less necessary.

    One suggestion – have two General Debates, one with nearly everything goes and one with identified people only to see if that would encourage more to be open about who they are. I’m sure many are deterred by the levels of attack and abuse that happen here at times.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Redbaiter (10,398 comments) says:

    wat dabney

    “Yeah Cunners – be who you are – a complete cunt.”

    Exactly the same thought occurred to me.

    When you’re a smarmy cunt with the permanent smirk of a child molester ‘be yourself’ is absolutely the worst possible advice.

    No demerits.

    Redbaiter

    “Well John Key is for redefining marriage and Barack Obama is married to a gorilla so that’s probably part of why they get along so well.”

    20 demerits

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. James Stephenson (2,266 comments) says:

    Yes, moderation is needed outside of GD, but just to keep things on topic and keep the abuse down. We’re adults so none of this banning people for using short Anglo-Saxon terms.

    Also count me in as another vote for there being nothing special about the name your parents decided to give you.

    Slightly tangential to the topic – what chances of threaded discussions to keep replies together?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    redbaiter – was your first example on General Debate? Did you report it to DPF?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. hj (7,156 comments) says:

    The difference between Kiwiblog and Frogblog/ The Standard is Political Correctness

    http://thestandard.org.nz/marama-davidson-candidate-for-tamaki-makaurau/
    You say the wrong thing and you are hung drawn and quartered before you are finished.
    [Funny LPrent sniffing around NZ First… with a hanky to his sensitive nose no doubt]

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. adze (2,130 comments) says:

    You can’t see a reason for being demerited for calling the first lady a gorilla, red? You may not have meant it as a racial slur but it certainly appears that way.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Ed Snack (1,939 comments) says:

    So what’s a “real” name ? And this third party stuff, the Snack is not against that, in principle.

    However the problem is a hard one. We’ve seen a lot of “trolling” of late, low-info posters basically (it seems to me) come for a “gloat”, should they be banned ? And we have the monomaniacs…I’d suggest a hand maybe just a tad hevier than now, mainly on the lines of “keep to the topic or post in GD”.

    FWIW

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. johnwellingtonwells (137 comments) says:

    In General Debate there are two many “one-liners” abusing other commentators. The process is “debate’ and if the person commenting is not prepared to debate, then a hard line should be taken. My scroll wheel is wearing out fast.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    Moderation as follows, and let’s name names:

    First, Mono-manical groups that cannot let go of a subject to the extent they clog up a thread, usually unrelated. The most recent example being “The Crewes” thread. Banishment is too good for these fanatics: Rowan, Muggins, Kanz

    Second, a simple comment cap on threads. Rarely is one of more than 200 comments going to carry any more info that’s worth knowing in the context of the thread. Cap at 300 comments.

    Third, dump people who regularly cut and past huge screeds of shit all the time. If they’re too lazy, stupid, and rude to concisely summarise in their own words and provide the supporting link then they’re not worth it, scrolling is a pain and not everybody uses Firefox and its delightful RIP feature: hj, public watchdog.

    And in all cases we’re talking about habitual offenders rather than the person who occasionally loses it.

    That’s about it. As for the UglyTruth’s of the world it’s really up to the rest of us to not provide the oxygen they so desperately want.

    P.S. I still think subjecting yourself to the Antique Media complaints process is a huge mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Zapper (1,048 comments) says:

    Yeah, I’m going to have to go with adze here – the first comment should be moderated in the new Kiwiblog world, and there can be no argument about attracting demerits for calling the First Lady a gorilla, regardless of what you think of her politics.

    Penny, you seem happy with this new moderation being proposed. You realise you will no longer be able to go into random threads with your ridiculous “SEEN THIS???” posts? Not sure what that will leave for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Inthisdress (322 comments) says:

    I’d suggest a limit on words used in one comment. I also like the

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (10,398 comments) says:

    “Did you report it to DPF?”

    I am no fucking Nark.

    Never have been and never will be.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Viking2 (11,672 comments) says:

    publicwatchdog (2,293 comments) says:
    September 2nd, 2014 at 12:21 pm

    As someone who ALWAYS posts under my own name – it’s my experience that those who can’t ‘handle the jandal’ when it comes to debating the issues – resort to personal attacks and often defamatory smears to try and discredit the person.

    I’ve had quite a lot of that :)
    ============================
    Well Penny like so many naughty kids you invite this upon yourself.
    You come here, using nefarious excuses for not paying your rates and expect to be treated fairly when you attack others.
    You have no credibility and its past time you actually stopped and related that to your treatment by others.
    Meant in caring way of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. jawnbc (99 comments) says:

    Good on you DPF

    1. This makes good sense to me

    2. There’s no guarantee that “real” names are real; they appear to be and for those who are persons you know personally this is verifiable. But there’s no shortage of spoof or bogus online profiles out there.

    BTW I use a pseudonym here out of respect for my employer (my boundary, not theirs). But you have my legitimate email address and can therefore always contact me.

    This ia worpress site, so you can set different levels of comment moderation. You could also integrate wordpress.com accounts into your site (for free) which would reduce/impede the ability for mischief. Though the miscreants of the world with time on their hands seem willing to do almost anything to continue venting their bile online…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    1 – (Less moderation General Debate, more moderation elsewhere)

    I think this is a good idea, and you would not be the first to do something like this. Check out nzhondas.com for an example of a large forum (in a different format) with a posted policy of having tight moderation of technical subjects – which they are trying to build up into a searchable online technical resource, and don’t want filled up with off-topic spam and / or personal abuse – and looser moderation of some ‘social’ areas. There are different levels of moderators, the ‘senior’ ones are officers of the club, while the lesser ones are inducted every couple of years from the pool of long-time forum contributors who are also rank & file club members; and it all seems to work, most of the time. It also seems to help with the organisation of the website that they are a car club with financial members as well as online forum contributors.

    2 – (Anonymity less leeway?)

    Someone prepared to say something controversial (on whatever subject) under his real name probably deserves more respect than anonymous trolls like me doing the same thing.

    Someone who makes totally crass, off-topic insults towards other users and disrupts the discussion under his own name probably deserves sanction EVERY BIT AS MUCH as someone doing the same under a pen name?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Redbaiter (10,398 comments) says:

    “P.S. I still think subjecting yourself to the Antique Media complaints process is a huge mistake.”

    Damn right. A massively huge mistake.

    And I think I speak for more than myself when I say that the difference between this blog and Whaleoil is appreciated by most users.

    Whaleoil might have the volume but it doesn’t have the quality.

    You don’t need to emulate that intellectual desert full of whining hicks & embittered Labour Party rejects.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. alloytoo (582 comments) says:

    1. Moderation in general debate should certainly be more relaxed than on specific posts, it would also serve not to be too anal about flippant one liners, while they may not add anything specific to the discussion at hand, they can be amusing and add flavour to a debate.

    2. I don’t favour demanding people post under their own name and with good reason.

    Comments under my name on Labour’s facebook page resulted in Labour trolls attempting to stalk me and intimidate me.

    Given the left’s proven propensity to disregard propriety, rule of law and their attempts to harm right wing commentators (Though I am more centralist) economically I, and I’m sure others, am disinclined to put myself and family at risk.

    This is after all why we have secret ballots, to protect us from these self appointed “watchdogs” who seek to undermine open discourse.

    I am more than willing to validate my identity with a site administrator, and certainly agree to use only one pseudonym (Which I do anyway across many sites).

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    “Did you report it to DPF?”

    I am no fucking Nark.

    Never have been and never will be.

    If you aren’t prepared to report excessive abuse to DPF how do you expect him to know to deal with it?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Black with a Vengeance (1,868 comments) says:

    Apply the same standards in GD as anywhere else.

    Real named people shouldn’t get preferntial treatment.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Redbaiter (10,398 comments) says:

    BWAV- You’re just a cowardly piece of narcissistic filth who should have been chucked off this site weeks ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Chuck Bird (4,892 comments) says:

    I accept that there are people who have legitimate reason for using a pseudonym such as job or business. However, where it is obvious that some people would not make the same comment using their full real name let alone in open public forum like an electorate meeting I agree they should be penalized more. I find those who resort to attacks on David Garrett will hiding behind a pseudonym as particularly deserving for demerits.

    I went to the electorate meeting in Papakura last week. It was interesting not one person was prepared to raise issues about what was in Hager’s book. The chairman certainly did not say such question were off limits.

    I find many of these keyboard warriors particularly cowardly. I would like to see one of then state their anti-Maori racist views in one of my locals.

    As for monitoring goes I think many of it is done by up or down ticks. I certainly would like to see down ticks and demerits for repetitive posts of huge amounts of cut and paste instead of a link.

    To summarise I agree in principle with DPFs proposals.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Viking2 (11,672 comments) says:

    How about we wait a few more weeks and we see the National Govt. with friends reelected.
    The trolls and shills will find something else to do and that will just leave us with Reddy (we can put up with him) and before long the undesirable will vanish under their own steam.

    If we start moderation then we succumb to the moral and lower standards of the Standard, Frog Blog and Whaleoil and many others.
    Even at its worst I don’t think KB has gone to that low level of quality.

    Freedom of speech is worth fighting for.
    What would have happened if so many of us hadn’t of spoken out about the EFA and what more corruption and secrets would have been never heard had we all been muzzled?

    KB operated for years without moderation and can continue to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. BeaB (2,164 comments) says:

    Why are Kiwis, even on Kiwiblog, so obsessed with rules and control?
    Let at least the blogs be free.
    Anything obnoxious will soon be thumbed down by the readers.
    Leave bans, censorship and mind control to the Left.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. hj (7,156 comments) says:

    tom hunter (4,566 comments) says:
    Third, dump people who regularly cut and past huge screeds of shit all the time. If they’re too lazy, stupid, and rude to concisely summarise in their own words and provide the supporting link then they’re not worth it, scrolling is a pain and not everybody uses Firefox and its delightful RIP feature: hj, public watchdog.
    …..
    You could put a cap on size of posts. Otherwise you might be accused of trying to shoot the messenger?
    https://www.google.co.nz/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=Tom+Hunter+%2B+immigration+%2B+Kiwiblog&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=MRUFVOihBMaN8QfHz4GQDg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. SGA (1,252 comments) says:

    Kiwiblog at 12:00 pm

    1. Should there be more moderation in posts on specific issues and a lesser standard of moderation in General Debate?

    Fair enough – I wouldn’t like it if the definition of “disruptive” grew so broad that a certain amount of off-topic banter was forbidden. Kiwiblog, to me anyway, has entertainment value as well as a place for “sharing points of view” :-) .

    2. Should greater leeway be given to people who post under their own names, or are clearly identifiable?

    Not so sure on this one. How would this work —
    Will we be screened to make sure that it is our “own name” that we using? I’m fond of Peter Wilson.
    What does “greater leeway” mean anyway?
    How will an interchange be moderated – an “anon” picking up demerits in a exchange with a “named” for saying exactly the same sort of things? Cludgy.

    Problem posters are problem posters whether they use their real name or not – fix that (see 1. above) and I’m not sure the second is that necessary.

    Why not start with 1. and see what happens.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    There’s practical problems for having different standards for different types of topics and for identified versus pseudonymous people. Regulars will learn and know the rules buy casual or irregular commenters won’t be familiar with what is expected.

    How many people read up on the blog rules before commenting? If you’d been away fro six months and went to Whale Oil and said “I agree” you could be banned permanently,according to one of their moderators – but you would have to have see that particular post.

    I think most people assess the apparent ‘norm’ of a forum and fit in with that, it’s a normal social practice.

    Better behaviour encourages better behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (899 comments) says:

    Good one DPF. This is your blog and we are bound by your rules. I suggest before you start banning people, run a demerit system and when they reach a limit (say 50 points as an example) ban them. That way you give them couple of changes to mend their ways.

    If they don’t want to change the way they write, they can accept the ban and leave the blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Inthisdress (322 comments) says:

    oops. I suggest a word limit in posts ie 150 words to stop people abusing the site as if it is their own personal blog/advertorial.
    I like the voting, but suggest you lower the ceiling of low approval to about 10 so that people who are abusive/exploitative can be cut out quicker by (un)popular votes.
    I’d also like to see a ‘troll -alert/unsavoury language’ placed next to anyone who is suspected of being a troll/abuser after a complaint is made and their content considered (three = poss disqualificationor sin-bin).
    Personal vendettas – why is it people use this place for that either to puff up their own self-esteem or to engage in ongoing disputes. finally a five-minute time-delay or ‘do you really want to post this?’ like on the radio as a caution for people who may get overly excited and post inflammatory remarks.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Deane Jessep (69 comments) says:

    I would moderate all threads the same.
    Comments should not need to be approved though.
    I like the demerit system.
    I like the hide comment section; that implies a level of ownership if a user decides to click on a low ranked comment.
    People who use their real name should absolutely have more latitude, in fact I will go so far as to say that people posting under their own name already risk defamation in a way anonymous people can’t (at least from an enforcement standpoint), and the hide low ranked comments system deals with the visibility. Maybe one method though might be to give less demerits to people who are not anonymous.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Black with a Vengeance (1,868 comments) says:

    BWAV- You’re just a cowardly piece of filth who should have been chucked off this site weeks ago.

    And why is that Russell ?

    How come you dont use your real name ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. kaykaybee (120 comments) says:

    Firstly David, can I congratulate you on your moderate and thought provoking blog. I’ve been reading you as long as you’ve been blogging and I’ve never had a problem with you in any respect.

    The main area I’d be keen to see addressed – apart from the obvious bad language, personal targeting, trolling and nutcase commentators – is THREADJACKING.

    There are one or three regulars who can never stick to a subject even giving it it’s broadest context, they’ve their own barrows to push and push them they will! Add to that those who’ll step in to inform them of their transgression and those who engage them in their sabotage and it ruins what is more than often an intelligent debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    Redbaiter:
    And I think I speak for more than myself when I say that the difference between this blog and Whaleoil is appreciated by most users.

    Whaleoil might have the volume but it doesn’t have the quality.

    You don’t need to emulate that intellectual desert full of whining hicks & embittered Labour Party rejects.

    Strange, that’s not what you say on your own site AT ALL

    http://truebluenz.com/2012/09/14/david-farrars-commie-fly-unzipped-again/

    http://truebluenz.com/2012/08/12/new-zealands-fake-right-wing-bloggers/

    [PS]: Credit where credit is due, I notice the main smoking gun item in Nicky Hager’s “Dirty Politics” (Jason Ede feeds stories to blogosphere) was broken on Truebluenz back in 2011:

    http://truebluenz.com/2011/12/29/red-alert-marxists-carry-on-carrying-on/

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    The real name thing is completely unnecessary, we are discussing ideas, end of story. The identity of an individual in these circumstances is completely irrelevant, our interaction here is issue specific and not relationship specific, so a personal name is not relevant to the process at all.

    It is absolutely critical to keep moderation to a minimum for any site that is discussing ideas and different perspectives.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    KB operated for years without moderation and can continue to do so.

    But the whole point of this exercise as I understand it is that Kiwiblog has a reputation for some awful stuff and for good reason. And that’s why DPF is considering cleaning things up.

    KB has operated with minimal moderation and allowing for a level of abusiveness has suited those who like that sort of thing – but I’m sure it puts a lot of others off too. It has also adversely affected DPF’s reputation – in particular with the ‘dirty politics’ issue the worst of Kiwiblog is seen by many as a symptom of a deliberate toxic environment.

    Shutting down debate (selectively) and shutting out people’s voices are amongst the most insidious aspects of political discourse. That’s a real problem on political blogs including KB.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Yes and yes.

    1. Police the areas where there is likely to be an issue.

    2. If you use your own name, you should own the statement. Removing their comment is akin to protecting them from themselves, which you have no responsibility to do.

    As someone who uses a pseudonym*, I see no problem with there being a cost to doing so. I wouldnt expect any need to change what I would write at all.

    I would suggest more leeway be afforded pseudonymous posters of long-standing. I would expect PsychoMilt to have a bad day fairly soon and completely lose his shit for a couple of drunken hours. No reason to treat him like the random StunnedTurd tourist using a brand new handle.

    *I am not anonymous, I have over 4,000 interactions on this blog. People know who Kimble is and what Kimble thinks. When people here see the name Kimble they associate it with an image in their head of an intelligent, witty, Clooney-esque man-about-town. And that description is so close to the mark, the lack of a “real world” handle hardly matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Black with a Vengeance (1,868 comments) says:

    Hello Mr Fletcher !

    Surely you must have a reason for your recent outburst. Care to elucidate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Maggy Wassilieff (483 comments) says:

    I like GD in the morning when new info often turns up. I don’t think it needs too much moderation at that time.
    Some of the twisted, repetitive, foul-mouthed banter in the evening between the select few is tedious. Is it worthy of moderation?…perhaps, or may be its better to just switch off and read a book.

    I pay more attention to folks posting under their own full name than those employing pseudonyms. though with time I’ve developed respect for a few posting under pseudonyms.
    My big concern is whether some people post on KB with more than one pseudonym. It seems probable to me that one prolific poster on KB operates under more than 1 pseudonym. I may be mistaken, but I keep recognizing identical grammatical mistakes and similar clumsy sentence constructions in these postings.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I don’t think the issue of names fully addresses the nature of the internet and some people who use it.

    This site isn’t only accessible to contributors – anyone can read here, and take information away from here and we have little control over that.

    As has been pointed out – if we have provided an authentic and verifiable email address, then we can be identified. I would be more than happy to fulfil any verification process that allowed DPF to hold my identity details, I trust him with that – but sorry, I do not trust people I don’t know, or worse still, people that can’t even be seen lurking, with that information.

    That is not because I don’t stand behind everything I say – but simply because experience has shown me there are some very unstable people in this world, who cannot simply accept differences of opinion, and seek to take those arguments into the open world, sometimes with devastating consequences.

    Also as an older female, who has worked with violent offenders, some of whom were less than thankful for that relationship, if I used my real name, I simply wouldn’t be able to post (is that a cheer I hear? hmm?)

    I wonder if DPF would consider a sort of Address/Identity verified status. That would give him the information required should someone make defamatory statements to pass the responsibility on for that – whilst offering a person the protection of having their personal/professional identity kept safe, and others would know that the individual concerned was prepared to stand by their words, in a safe manner by noting their Address verified status.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Monique Angel (297 comments) says:

    What do Phil U and Water Woman have to say about the proposed changes?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. hj (7,156 comments) says:

    It is well known (or should be) that we have a political class/ elite. Either money is talking or ideology (someone has made a career on something) Every dog should have his day.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Lindsay Addie (1,336 comments) says:

    Yes there should be stronger moderation on threads that are dealing with specific issues. I personally find it bloody annoying when threads on specific topics get hijacked by trolls and people who simply want to abuse or denigrate others who don’t agree with them and then cannot give a cogent reason why they’re promoting such opinions. To put that another way is I’m not the least bit interested in why one poster thinks another is a fuckwit or c**t simply because they hold different views.

    One suggestion in light of this is would it be better to have a more lightly moderated general debate for people who want to talk about stuff that is non-political and doesn’t discuss specific policy or hard core political topics and issues?

    Then have another thread that runs daily that is for strictly for discussions/debates on policy or political topics that DPF hasn’t covered in his own posts. This thread would need to be more strictly moderated in some way.

    As for the topic of posters who use real names getting privileges I don’t see why they should. I post under my real name but so what? What should happen is people who are posting under pseudonym’s who are clearly using that as a cover to abuse or troll on a regular basis should be banned.

    As for the moderator’s I agree with Dime someone like Pete at Whaleoil is not wanted for the role. He is on some sort of ego trip.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Tinshed (170 comments) says:

    I agree with broad outlines proposed by DPF. Stronger moderation definitely but one place where people are freer to mouth off.

    Agree that there should no difference between anonymous and real name posters. There are many, many reasons for people choosing an anonymous handle. None of which justifies being treated differently. But full marks to those that post under their own name. In my view their posts carry much more weight because of that. Even Trevor Mallard’s!

    kaykaybee is absolutely spot-on about threadjacking. I am not sure how many times threads have lost all relevance as the usual suspects battle out their same tired old agendas. These significantly devalue Kiwiblog.

    One point that seems to be missed a bit is that this is DPF’s blog. Like his property. He owns it and pays for it. He gets to call the shots. Some people think of Kiwiblog as some people do of Christchurch Cathedral – public property where the public gets to have a say in what should happen to it. Neither are public property. So claiming “free speech rights” is a bit rich in my view. Let’s focus on the issues in a robust and forceful manner without descending into the personal abuse, trolling and other evils.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Black with a Vengeance (1,868 comments) says:

    BWAV- You’re just a cowardly piece of narcissistic filth who should have been chucked off this site weeks ago.

    Classic case of random abuse and threadjacking with impugnity.

    Once again Russell get’s a free pass to do as pleases.

    Why is that?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    There’s a practical issue with verified identities – security. One result of the hacked Whale Oil data is that Nicky Hager and NZ Herald have chosen to out the identity of some people.

    Social media 101 – comment as if your identity could be revealed.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. hj (7,156 comments) says:

    There is a danger of assault on blogs, although I think it is mostly just trying to scare. I used to get a phone call occasionally when I was on Frogblog (deep male voice) and someone called “Mark” alluded to using some sort of hand gun.
    The dangerous ones are those who don’t have an answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. mister nui (1,030 comments) says:

    A good way to initiate a level of blog self-moderation is to have commenters rated by fellow commenters. Something like click on the name and give them a star rating.

    This quickly helps identify the wheat from the chaff and some can then automatically be put into moderation. May be a better system than moderating all posts on every thread, other than GD.

    Agree with proposition 2.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. mister nui (1,030 comments) says:

    Oh, and please, no “threading of comments”. Personally I find the comments loaded just as they are perfect.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    One suggestion in light of this is would it be better to have a more lightly moderated general debate for people who want to talk about stuff that is non-political and doesn’t discuss specific policy or hard core political topics and issues?

    Then have another thread that runs daily that is for strictly for discussions/debates on policy or political topics that DPF hasn’t covered in his own posts. This thread would need to be more strictly moderated in some way.

    I think this is well worth considering. Currently General Debate serves disitinct two purposes – it’s a place to introduce topics that DPF hasn’t posted on, and as Maggie said this can be very effective.

    But it’s also a playground for some who have no intention to debate, all they want to do is chat, berate others or amuse themselves.

    Perhaps these two could be separated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    In my opinion stronger moderation is needed.
    If I could cite the Trade Me message board as an example.
    Use of words such as moron, retard et al result in an immediate warning and a repetition brings a months ban.
    There is no need for this sort of behaviour.
    One of the contributors to kiwiblog was banned for life by Trade Me for using the word arsewipe more than once.
    Another point.
    Posters should not be allowed to quote any message that was posted on another website. ie if a poster on kiwiblog posted a message on Trade Me recently or even a few years ago it should not be quoted on kiwiblog.
    Because of my knowledge on the Bain case I have been subject to continuous abuse from David Bain supporters. I believe that abuse is being orchestrated.
    That sort of thing should not be allowed. Ok, sometimes I return the abuse , but I wouldn’t do so if I wasn’t abused in the first place.
    I say tidy up this blog. Keep it clean. No swearing, no abuse, no trying to discredit someone by calling them a liar, etc., etc.
    And I also wonder about the merits of having a voting system
    Personally I wouldn’t have one.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    David Farrar,

    One of the things I most admire about you is your fair and liberal blog moderation.

    I say don’t change a thing.

    Regards

    Chris Scott.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. SGA (1,252 comments) says:

    I say tidy up this blog. Keep it clean. No swearing, no abuse, no trying to discredit someone by calling them a liar, etc., etc.

    Actually, I’d hate to see this place toooo sanitised. A certain amount of “rough and tumble” makes the place more interesting. I think part of KB’s success has been the relatively light moderation – let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    Use of words such as moron, retard et al result in an immediate warning and a repetition brings a months ban.
    There is no need for this sort of behaviour.

    And while we’re at it why don’t we implement a dress code as well? this should clearly be a suit and tie affair, I mean, how can one be a respectable poster when dressed like a gutter snipe?

    Its just about as relevant as having to post on the internet with your real name ffs.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    David Farrar,

    One of the things I most admire about you is your fair and liberal blog moderation.

    I say don’t change a thing.

    Regards

    Chris Scott.

    Ha! We’ve finally cracked your code! Way to out your self SC! Or should I say CS!

    Regards,
    Blekim

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Chuck
    I agree with much of what you say. I certainly agree that some of the posters on this blog are cowardly. They wouldn’t have the guts to make some of the comments they make if they had to post under their given name.
    But I do not believe that monitoring can be done by use of up/down ticks.
    There are a number of posters who quite regularly receive more down ticks than up ticks but it doesn’t stop them posting.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Shunda
    I don’t know whether you resort to abusing other posters or not if they don’t agree with you. I very much doubt if Shunda is your real name.
    What I will say that members should ask themselves the question ” Would I say this if I wasn’t hiding behind a pseudonym?”
    And I have to say, your reference to what one should wear is a pretty childish response .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. xy (202 comments) says:

    I think you gotta decide what policy moderation is based on – the current situation where downvotes hide comments makes honest debates useless if you come along after a while, because people go through and downvote people they disagree with, not because the post is low quality. Look at any of the debates Judith has had for example – if you come back and look at them later, all her posts get downvoted, and so half the conversation is missing. Anonymous voters are not voting based on comment quality, they’re voting based on whether they agree with the content of the post – if you want an echo chamber this is a great way of doing it.

    Example! http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/09/greens_wages_policy.html

    Comment 1 from toad calmly responds to the post and makes a policy argument. +3 -8. Comment 3 from kowtow says ‘It’s all far left bullshit. Same with all this marriage “equality”, gender equality etc. All commie bollocks.’. +5 -1

    The first comment is what should be being posted, EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH IT. The other one is the kind of post that should be moderated out.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    There are a number of posters who quite regularly receive more down ticks than up ticks but it doesn’t stop them posting.

    Why should it? It would become a farce if the bog was based on participation by vote.
    a) most readers don’t tick
    b) ticks can be used as a form of intimidation and attempt to discredit which is a common negative in political discussion
    c) down ticks don’t invalidate the point being made
    d) I often comment knowing it could be heavily downticked, Sometimes the aim is to measure negative reaction

    A simple example – quote a stupid comment or a ludicrous claim by David Cunliffe and that’s likely to get downticked, justifiably, I’d down tick it. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be quoted here.

    Edit – and as per xy’s comment ^

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    I bet that if everyone on this blog had to use their real name then hardly anyone would post.
    I would, but I wonder how many other members would.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Pete
    This is a right wing blog. Any claim by David Cunliffe is going to get downticked , ridiculous or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    Why change something that works.
    Its not measurably broken now.
    The present system of Demerits can get the more obnoxious posters banned :lol: even me.
    Thread jacking usually occurs when the debate has mostly run its cause
    Scrolling is free…. dont like a commentators posts wind on past .
    Those who repetitively cut and paste of screeds of dribble (fletch, penny tarnish ) it only results in others habitually scrolling past that commentators comments.
    As to pseudonyms
    Griff has a lot more gravitas on KB or even the net as a whole than my “real” name. Whether its a handle or your real name I dont really care.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    xy
    You make a good point. I have very little time for Judith because of her position re David Bain , but she sometimes makes some very good points, yet she invariably gets more downticks than upticks. Not that it would bother her, but still.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Pharmachick (248 comments) says:

    1. Yeah, okay. There seems to be more threadjacking and posting of ridiculously long pieces from other places in the last 12 months (e.g. hj: I live in Vancouver – even we don’t care about the Sun as much as you seem to, although the prof from UBC was quite correct *here*… I’m fairly sure it doesn’t apply to NZ in the same way – and I bought a house in February) . But don’t make all comments subject to moderation – the demerit thing works fine.

    2. Dunno on this – anyone with half a keyboard could work out who i was if they looked at my comments, and I try to always comment with respect. But not everyone does. Some of the playing-the-man-not-the ball is pretty low (and I wish everyone would give it a rest with David Garrett & the passport thing when they can’t out-argue him – just agree to disagree people).

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Griff
    I am not suggesting that posters be required to use their real name. What I am suggesting is that they post as if they were using their real name.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Pharma
    In my opinion the demerit system does not work fine. Giving someone a five day ban for continuous abuse is like giving someone a slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Pharmachick (248 comments) says:

    Yes muggins – that’s a good point … BTW – you have the same screen name as my Aunt’s nickname that she’s had since childhood :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    SGA
    There are more people posting on the Trade Me message board than there are on kiwiblog and the TM moderators are much stricter than David Farrar is.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Regards,
    Blekim

    Har har Ble.

    But seriously, I’ve often wondered whether Farrar’s blog moderation policy has been a kind of social experiment to see whether a blog culture can evolve which effectively self-regulates without the need for censure.

    I play a game called World of Warcraft in which players have the option to ‘ignore’ other players temporarily or permanently (and believe me, you don’t know the meaning of the word troll ’till you’ve played WOW) which, I would suggest would be the ideal censorship system for this blog given its inherent philosophy.

    Point being, you can permanently ‘ignore’ (ie you don’t see their posts) anyone you consider to be a ‘troll’ and you can temporarily ‘ignore’ anyone who is interacting with that ‘troll’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. coolas (115 comments) says:

    I reckon ‘less is more’ regarding moderation ‘cos that’s one of the most impelling features of Kiwiblog. How about an experiment in no moderation at all for, say a week, and see what happens.

    Maybe a restraint on really abusive (defamatory) comments would be to insist that on signing up folk must supply their real names. ie all though I have the pseudo Coolas, Kiwiblog knows my real name from my profile.

    As a ‘leftie’ who reads Kiwiblog daily, I value the access to the right wing mind set, and sometimes when I comment I’m slammed. Fair enough. As that arch-leftie Voltaire said, “I might disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Kiwiblog has been great. I love the argy bargy, the odd bit of humour as well as proper debate, the crazies like old Philu in his mad full stop phase, the regulars such as Red and Garrett and Judith, and even the trolls who wander in from the Standard to get their bums kicked.

    If threat of defamation action is motivating DPF on this, there is a drastic solution which entails basing a blog in Panama under new name and with promoter’s name secret. I guess that’s not going to happen unless one of us strikes it rich and is bored, so we pretty much have to go along with any changes.

    However, I hope DPF’s move doesn’t mean the MSM sets the standard for this blog. We don’t want bland sermons.

    Otherwise, if the Wild West saloon party has to end, I support most of what Pete George posted at 12.23.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. BeaB (2,164 comments) says:

    Perhaps some of you would be happier with the NZ Women’s Weekly. No rude words or nasty people saying nasty things.
    What is wrong with freedom of expression? I can agree or not. I can read or not. I can thumbs up or down. I can frown or smile. I am not going to faint because someone uses a rude word.
    Are we in kindergarten or on an adult blog?
    Soon, if some of you have your way, there’ll be so many rules we’ll be spending all our time reading them instead of posting a comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. m@tt (636 comments) says:

    My two cents.

    Moderate ad hominem attacks vigorously. You can apply that outside of GD only if you prefer, but I personally don’t think they belong anywhere in a blog that wants to be taken seriously.

    They are the number one reason that threads go off the rails. People robustly arguing back and forth over ideas is fine, but once it degenerates to school yard taunting, name calling and bullying it’s an immediate turn off for people that really want to debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. xy (202 comments) says:

    I don’t give a shit about thumbs down, in and of themselves – but I think it’s a huge problem that thumbs down lead to posts being hidden automatically.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Something I can’t remember now, but does everyone that posts on kiwiblog have to supply an email address ?
    I can remember that a year or so ago one member was so annoyed about being “outed” on kiwiblog [ His profile is on the SST website, which was linked to] that he asked DF to advise him of the details of the poster that outed him. I was under the impression that DF is aware of who we are. If that is not the case then maybe it should be.
    The member I am referring to [the outed one] tried to take me to court for harassment for something I posted on TM, very mild compared with some of the comments posted on here. In the end we settled out of court [at no cost to me, fortunately] .
    He also named a TM Director as first defendant [ I was second defendant and there were two others] . Trade Me defended their director and won and the member on here had to pay $7000 odd in costs.
    What I am getting round to saying is that if a person is getting continually abused by one person on kiwiblog then they could ask DF to supply the details of that person to their lawyer so that their lawyer could send them a request to desist, or else further action will be taken.
    Of course there would be no need to take any action if abusive comments made on this blog were ” nipped in the bud” as it were.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    What other blogs have a voting system?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Pete
    You make a good point. Comment as if your identity could be revealed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    DPF: If we could find a rich Right winger who would sponsor a Panama base for Kiwiblog, would you bestow NZ with this continuing robust forum by handing the whole thing over?

    [DPF: The base would not exempt me from NZ laws]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Unity (633 comments) says:

    I basically like it the way it is but you have said things are going to change. The only changes I would like to see is where people get abusively personal and a bit disgusting with their comments. If we could all just keep it polite and reasonable respectful that would be preferable.

    I don’t use my name because for family reasons I don’t really want to be identified. However I don’t say anything that I don’t firmly believe or for some ulterior motive. I wouldn’t be happy with my posts being relegated or deleted because I’m not using my real name. I also agree with comments above that the blog is better for having comments posted immediately and not left in abeyance for the Moderator to check over before they appear.

    I too love this blog site, so please don’t change it too much.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    “What other blogs have a voting system?”

    Of the major blogs Whale Oil and The Daily Blog also have up/down voting. A number of MSM forums have something like it as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. ShawnLH (6,611 comments) says:

    From Redbaiter

    “BWAV- You’re just a cowardly piece of narcissistic filth who should have been chucked off this site weeks ago.”

    David, this is exactly the kind of abusive crap that should be be moderated out of existence.

    People come here to debate. There seems to be a small minority who are not interested, or not capable, of doing that, and instead respond to every single post or critique of their views with this kind of extreme personal abuse. It does your blog no good at all.

    I’m not talking about the more friendly ribbing that goes on, but the very extreme kinds of abuse that some, including Redbaiter, are fond of. This needs to be dealt with far more firmly and quickly.

    I agree with point 1. The GD thread by it’s very nature is more anarchic. But those threads with a specific point are too often being threadjacked by folks with a mono-maniacal obsession.

    I’m less sure about point 2. I post under my own name, but I understand there are those who don’t who have very good reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    I would be quite happy to post under my own name if it meant that by doing so anyone calling me a retard would be given more demerits than one would if I was using a pseudonym.
    But in my opinion anyone that uses abuse to try and make a point means they know their argument is weak. It is childish behaviour and there is no excuse for it. Rough and tumble my arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Shawn
    What do you mean, you post under your own name?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Reboot (103 comments) says:

    What you need is a system based on incentives. For example posters with warnings will have their future comment font size reduced each time. They can earn back readable font if they receive no more warnings for three months. Commenters who do not receive warnings will get special features like custom font colours if they reach say six months with no warnings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. ShawnLH (6,611 comments) says:

    “What do you mean, you post under your own name?”

    Your question is odd. I mean just what I said, my name is Shawn, and Lee Herles (LH) are my second and third names.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Unity (633 comments) says:

    Shawn will be his christian name, Muggins, I assume, and the LH are probably his initials for middle and last name or maybe he has a hyphenated last name. Just my guess!!??

    I agree with Shawn about filthy abuse. It’s not necessary and certainly undesirable – and contributes nothing to the debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Nostradamus (2,427 comments) says:

    xy:

    xy (171 comments) says:
    September 2nd, 2014 at 2:33 pm
    I don’t give a shit about thumbs down, in and of themselves – but I think it’s a huge problem that thumbs down lead to posts being hidden automatically.

    What part of “Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see” do you see as a “huge problem”?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    ShawnLH is a worthwhile poster and can make a debate much more interesting, but I disagree with the 2.49 posts of Shawn and Muggins, about some of the less civil ad hominem posts on Kiwiblog.

    Shawn, the threads were noticeably more bland when Redbaiter was absent. In the example you cite above, of Red’s comment about Black with a Vengeance, there is background. Black with a Vengeance has been posting virtually in troll style over the last week. He has coat-tailed in on discussion about Hager, and disrupted debate and also made extremely offensive remarks about another poster. If you want to single someone out as an example of what you complain of, Shawn, Black with a Vengeance would be more apropos than Redbaiter.

    Fellow posters and submitters, the exchange in this thread between Black with a Vengeance and Redbaiter, with Shawn picking up on it, is the sort of salt and pepper that prevents Kiwiblog becoming as bland as Pete George’s own blog, which has a far, far smaller following. Pete’s posts on Kiwiblog in my view are more interesting, lively, and readable than material his own blog. Perhaps it’s the free-for-all, colourful, environment in Kiwiblog that causes this.

    Let’s all be careful what we wish for.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. ShawnLH (6,611 comments) says:

    The “Hidden due to low comment rating” system is fine with me. It’s not often that posts are hidden but when they are it’s almost always for good reason, usually personal abuse or threadjacking. And it does not stop people reading the comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    Shunda
    I don’t know whether you resort to abusing other posters or not if they don’t agree with you.

    We all play the game, sometimes things get a little heated, welcome to life.

    I very much doubt if Shunda is your real name.

    For realz brah?

    What I will say that members should ask themselves the question ” Would I say this if I wasn’t hiding behind a pseudonym?”

    And I will ask you this question, would you walk up to a complete stranger and begin a discourse on politics and social issues out of nowhere? it wouldn’t be right would it, but Forums like this involve interaction with complete strangers therefore the current format is appropriate, anonymity is acceptable, political correctness and civility optional (thank goodness).

    And I have to say, your reference to what one should wear is a pretty childish response.

    No it isn’t, it is sarcasm, what is actually childish is being treated like a child, ie being told what we can and can’t say because immature precious people CHOOSE to take offense as a matter of “right”.

    No one has a right to be offended, participate or not, the choice is simple.

    Anything else is pandering to the over sensitive and shallow thinkers that cry to mummy when the going gets tough.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    “But in my opinion anyone that uses abuse to try and make a point means they know their argument is weak. ”

    Most of the recidivist abusers don’t care about ‘their argument’, they may not have one. All they are trying to do is discredit or shout down an argument or person that they don’t want. here. That’s a common political tactic across blogs.

    A notable strength of Kiwiblog is that those tactics aren’t backed up by banning as they are elsewhere. One of the ‘dirty politics’ criticisms is the tactic of shutting down debate. The methods might be less in your face as Slater can be but the aim is as insidious, to filter out dissent and alternative opinions.

    I’v encountered a number of cases over the past couple of weeks where people have got very anti when this is pointed out to them. That they are not as bad as Whale Oil is a very poor excuse for having similar aims.

    Kiwiblog is the only major blog that as a blog doesn’t support this tactic (although some using KB try to implement it themselves).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. ShawnLH (6,611 comments) says:

    @ Jack5

    Yes I agree that we don’t want things to become bland. But, I think that extreme personal abuse does nothing to spice things up, it’s just a distraction at best, and potentially dangerous at worst.

    I used Red’s post as an example, but you are right that he’s not the only one, and BWAV vengeance might have brought it on himself. However Red uses this kind of attack with virtually anyone who disagrees with him, myself included, even when the comment he is responding too is civil. That’s no OK, it’s not interesting, it adds nothing to the blog, and it could potentially create problems for DPF down the line.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    The problem with making exceptions for Redbaiter for amusement purposes is that others think that that sort of abusive attack style is ok for everyone.

    And in considering how you want KB to be remember that it is DPF’s blog and It’s his reputation that is involved. Any of you that prefer an abusive harrassing environment can try setting one of your own up rather than expecting someone else to provide it for you.

    Jack5 – there’s a big difference between commenting on a blog and writing blog posts, with quite different purposes, targets and styles (which can be challenging to switch in and out of).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. wreck1080 (3,999 comments) says:

    Just don’t go overboard like whaleoil moderation.

    I got banned from whaleoil for suggesting that Cam do the gangnam style dance ouside his Sth Korea hotel just to prove to the journalists that he really was in South Korea.

    Banned for that? With no prior warnings?

    Actually, it is a good thing anyway. I’ve been tiring of his style of blogging.

    Ranting over :)

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    And in considering how you want KB to be remember that it is DPF’s blog and It’s his reputation that is involved.

    How is anything other than Davids personal blog posts going to damage his reputation? is it really a surprise that political discussion generates tension?

    People need to stop being so damned soft and sensitive.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    “Just don’t go overboard like whaleoil moderation.”

    Coincidentally a new post at Whale Oil:

    Note to (some of) our commenters
    by Pete on September 2, 2014 at 3:15pm

    Message: Hi Guys
    Just saw that my general debate post [ redacted ]
    being in bad taste has been deleted. I’ve checked the guidelines and
    cant find why this would be the case. No big drama but would be
    interested to know why is all. Cheers

    We have no time for things like this. Stop emailing Cameron Slater and demanding explanations for moderating decisions. It’s a near certain way to get sidelined for being annoying and a time waster. There are over a quarter million readers our there, and we have a job to do. Moderators, nor Cam, have the time to pander to your bruised egos or puzzled minds because a comment got moderated out.

    On behalf of the moderation team…

    That’s all.

    From being one of the most open blogs to comment at (alongside KB) Whale Oil has become one of the Draconianly controlled.

    That almost deserves going Godwin.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Nigel Kearney (1,096 comments) says:

    I use my own name but have no problem with pseudonyms. We’ve moved on from the Helengrad regime but it could still come back and bite people in the future. A pseudonym might affect credibility but should not affect what people are allowed to post.

    IMO this blog really needs a more fully functional commenting system with threaded comments. Each poster could assign a colour (green/yellow/red) to their comment and that colour would regulate what is permissible in the thread under that comment, e.g. green = anything goes, yellow = anything except insults or off-topic stuff, red = stuff you would say in a public debate with your mother in the audience.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Viking2 (11,672 comments) says:

    muggins (3,286 comments) says:
    September 2nd, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    Chuck
    I agree with much of what you say. I certainly agree that some of the posters on this blog are cowardly. They wouldn’t have the guts to make some of the comments they make if they had to post under their given name.
    But I do not believe that monitoring can be done by use of up/down ticks.
    There are a number of posters who quite regularly receive more down ticks than up ticks but it doesn’t stop them posting.

    ===========================
    You are talking about the same guy who used threats on another blog NZCPC to threaten posters who disagreed with his warped and sexually orientated brain. He accused others of belonging to Nambla or whatever his hobby horse was at the time and threatened all sorts of stuff.
    He is a nasty piece of crap and remains that way.

    Anyone who has observed his commenting will know that he hasn’t changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. MT_Tinman (3,315 comments) says:

    Nostradamus (3,149 comments) says:
    September 2nd, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    What part of “Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see” do you see as a “huge problem”?

    The part where it doesn’t work on the mobile site and I have to trawl through heaps of utter crap I’d rather not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. lurcher1948 (151 comments) says:

    I really like Mr Farrars blog.He is my blog of choice.Slaters greasy blog is copy and paste garbage,Mr Farrars blog excepts both left and right posters or like me who dont care anymore. As to voting if a dog was on the roll against Dunne, he would get my vote so i dont bother anymore,live long David great blog

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Black with a Vengeance (1,868 comments) says:

    I give as good as I get. Can’t say as I have ever insulted anyone straight off the bat like Russell Fletcher (redbaiter) continually does.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Colville (2,318 comments) says:

    Ok I have been traveling so I am late to this…

    Moderation is all good however..

    A couple of weeks back I made the following post at WO ……

    Colville10 days agoRemoved
    If someone had told me a year ago that WO would be banning people for trivial offences against “the message” I would have bet decent money against that. But its true IMHO anyways. If the current heavy handed approach continues this place for all its good and bad points will swiftly become an echo chamber where only the Mods have a voice.
    I dont pay the bills here so my 2 cents worth isnt even worth that.

    I was seemingly banned without comment or warning. After a week or so I asked If I had been banned ?, what had I done? and could I be unbanned?

    I got the following reply. (after about 15 minutes of deliberation!)

    The response from the team is that the ban is permanent, sorry.

    I would hate this place to go the same way.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Pharmachick (248 comments) says:

    Re: the moderation on Whale Oil … I think it has got a bit out of hand. They are very quick to ban and tell off posters, yet there are certain posters that seem to have a “free pass”. Several commenters openly talk about “worried about moderators”. Also, it has become a bit echo chamber. But I still go and read it all the time, so I guess it hasn’t put me off.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Shawn
    I didn’t know what the LH stood for.
    Shawn Lee Herles. Ok . So Herles is your surname , right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    I am coming very late to this – real world and all that – which means everything’s pretty much been said.

    1. I agree with a lesser degree of moderation and more leeway for comments on GD…but I agree with others that “X is a cunt who should be shot” type comments should be moderated out or at least demerited regardless. That said, I realise I have sometimes been guilty of such myself, particularly regarding one particular commenter who I strongly believe should be in prison, not blithely commenting on blogs.

    2. Pseuds. Everyone knows my view on anonymous commenters…and let me acknowledge Judith’s justifiable criticism that I usually only object to comments by pseuds when they are contrary to my views. Mea culpa. Unlike others – probably most – I DONT see any good reason for most users of pseuds. I can see that if someone is a senior public servant, or in a position where commenting on blogs is contrary to their employment contract, then there is probably good reason. But what percentage of commenters fit those qualifications…1%? 5%?

    For most, anonymity is just a cloak for vicious ad hominen attacks, or resorting – in my case – to references to my misdeeds of thirty years ago, and snide remarks about which passport I may have been using when something I have referred to happened.

    So it will be no surprise when I say Yes, I believe those with the courage to identify themselves and stand by their opinions should be granted greater leeway…but not so much so that they can also revert to “cunt who should be shot” type comments without paying a penalty.

    Again, I have been guilty of responding to ad hom attacks with some of my own…I do try to resist doing so, but frankly it gets very tiresome being asked for seemingly the hundredth time “Have you apologised to the dead baby’s mother yet?” A comment like that, by definition, can NEVER be on topic…unless of course it was a thread about passport misuse, but I have yet to see one of those.

    Lastly, I strongly agree with those above who have said comments should never be “awaiting moderation”…I agree that the immediacy of KB and its comments is one of its chief attractions.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Nookin (3,559 comments) says:

    Some simple rules:
    1. Rebaiter is to produce a medical certificate on a monthly basis in order to assuage any fear that he will blow a Fu Fu valve.
    2. D4J is not to lurk on the same thread as Big Bruv unless wearing a mooloo bell.
    3. Penny must pay $100 on account of her rates bill for any post that resembles electioneering and $500 every time she refers to Wall Street or derivatives.
    4. Bainiacs shall be confined to a thread that is invisible to everyone else and may not be allowed out except during the hours of 11 p.m. until 6 a.m.
    5. Religious debate only when there is cease-fire in Gaza.
    6. Stand-down for thread-jacking.
    7. If BB teases D4J he must provide a live commentary on the next Canterbury game.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Nookin (3,559 comments) says:

    “For most, anonymity is just a cloak for vicious ad hominen attacks,..”

    In which case, there should be sanctions for the vicious ad hominem attack regardless of whether it is posted under a pseudonym or not. A comment is acceptable or unacceptable having regard to its content and not its author or ability to identify the author.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Look , if I put my mind to it I could abuse posters until DF gave me a holiday.
    Retard, moron, kiddy fiddler, cocks***er, Motherf***er , arsewipe , paedo lover, shitface, dogbreath, turd, bumbuddy, cunt , fuckwit etc.,etc.
    But why should I lower myself to that level, just because some others do it?
    I reckon DF should put up a list of words and tell members anyone using those words or words similar will be banned for a week, and then if they use them again, they get banned for a month and three strikes and your out.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Nookin,
    Re post at 4.10.
    Very clever.
    I particularly like #4.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    I play a game called World of Warcraft in which players have the option to ‘ignore’ other players temporarily or permanently (and believe me, you don’t know the meaning of the word troll ’till you’ve played WOW) which, I would suggest would be the ideal censorship system for this blog given its inherent philosophy.

    Pretty sure that Redbaiter was a guildie once.

    The moderation here is lax. I haven’t managed to scrounge a single demerit.

    One change: anything Pete George posts should attract a demerit for blandness.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Nookin: with respect, you have read my comment wrongly…or perhaps I wasn’t clear. I was NOT saying vicious ad hom attacks are OK, so long as you’re using your real name…I agree they should attract a sanction, regardless of whether the commenter identifies himself.

    I also like your list of rules…I would go one step further for the Bainiacs..what newspapers used to do when something had been debated to death: a notice which said “this correspondence is closed.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Viking
    NZCPC?
    Different bloke, methinks.
    Doesn’t sound lo like the bloke who tried to take me to court for harassing him on TM.
    Is he is the habit of using the word arsewipe?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. ShawnLH (6,611 comments) says:

    Muggins

    “So Herles is your surname , right?”

    Yup.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Kimbo (1,231 comments) says:

    @ David Garrett

    Just in passing…

    Not sure if you caught up with my apology at the time when we had a bit of a set-to a month or so ago re a comment you made about the photo of David Cunliffe.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Kimbo: No, I didn’t, but I have forgotten all about it, so I can’t have been terminally wounded!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Kimbo (1,231 comments) says:

    Fair enough. My conscience was troubling me, so glad to see no harm done.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    David,
    The trouble with Bainiacs is that once the word Bain is mentioned on a thread [and this happened recently on the Who killed the Crewe’s thread where the David lovers tried to liken Thomas to Bain] the call goes out for reinforcements from both sides and what was a Crewe thread becomes a Bain thread.
    I reckon that unless DF specifically writes a thread about Bain then anyone who mentions Bain on any other thread should get a weeks holiday. There is more abuse heaped out by Bain’s supporters than by anyone else, in my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Unity (633 comments) says:

    To David Garrett – I just want to say that I too switch off when comments are made to you about ‘past events’, by obviously low cowardly people. You have paid the price and should be allowed to move on without it being brought up constantly by ‘these low people’. Just ignore them even though it must be totally frustrating for you. I ignore them or give a down tick and I hope everyone else will. I particularly enjoy your common sense posts.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Nookin (3,559 comments) says:

    David.
    I simply do not see the need to make any distinction between somebody who writes under their real name and somebody who writes under a pseudonym. I made that point in response to another of Penny’s rantings about “gutless” posters. The comment should stand on its own two feet. As far as I am concerned, nobody needs to know who I am. Identifying a poster is simply an open invitation to take personal potshots – something that has happened to you in spades – and, in my view, totally defeats the whole purpose of the blog which is the exchange of views and imparting of wisdom, expertise and information, time-filling, grandstanding, taking the piss in good-humoured fashion, berating the left, berating the right, and the sheer and unadulterated worship of the All Blacks by lower North Island taxi-drivers.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Nookin (3,559 comments) says:

    If I misread your comment, I’m sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Shawn.
    Ok.
    Well ,if you want to be able to say you use your own name then you should do what David Garrett does, post under your christian and surname, ie Shawn Herles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    ….”Retard, moron, kiddy fiddler, cocks***er, Motherf***er , arsewipe , paedo lover, shitface, dogbreath, turd, bumbuddy, cunt , fuckwit etc.,etc.”…..

    You are a precious wee soul muggins…..I fear for your equilibrium should you ever venture into a public bar or a rugby clubroom. Most swearwords & insults get boring with constant repetition but used sparingly they can drive home a point. I go along with BeaB’s comment at 2.27pm, ” …..I am not going to faint because someone uses a rude word. Are we in kindergarten or on an adult blog?”…..

    DPF himself is not beyond using the odd colourful phrase when he considers it appropriate.

    What does get up my date are the repetitive attempts some commenters make in order to silence David Garrett through references to a previous mistake he made. We have all witnessed the attacks ad nauseum…..we have all read his response many times.

    Give it a rest.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Nookin,
    Nothing wrong with taking the piss. Just so long as the person doing it doesn’t use the words retard, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I do not believe a rule that applies only to David Garrett is acceptable. Surely if there was to be such a ruling, then it should apply across the board – no taking pot shots or raising any past offending for which a poster has served their sentence.

    I do not see how, or why, the rule should apply to one person, and the behaviour be allowed to continue for others, unless someone can point out to me any ‘special circumstances’ that excuse the obvious hypocrisy?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Nookin: Very witty. My logic about pseudonymous (yep, that’s a word!) comments is really quite simple: If you think your comments are worth sharing, then stand by them, and use your name.

    Although Red in particular constantly tells me “this is the internet, not Letters to the Editor”, I’m afraid I don’t see the difference, other than the medium of course – one being electronic and immediate, the other being (also now largely electronic) but not seeing the light of day until the next issue of the publication.

    Surely a lack on anonymity must discourage ranting or insulting comments? Several people above have said one should comment AS IF the comment is not anonymous…why not got that one step further – unless you are one of those senior public servants I have referred to?

    Judith: Perhaps you have not read my earlier comment where I acknowledge the validity of your point about my rather selective objection to pseuds?

    I am not for one minute suggesting there should be one special rule for me…I have never done so.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    nasska,
    Get real.
    I played rugby for quite a few years. And you know what? When I played no-one spat on the field, no-one pissed on the field [sorry that was a league player] no-one swore to any great extent either in the club rooms or the changing rooms.
    Standards have slipped since those days, I can tell you that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Muggins: did some All Black piss on the field once? Oops…this is supposed to be about thread moderation…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Judith
    Methinks you are being a little disingenuous.
    David Garrett posts under his own name. The person you are referring to does not. If he did, I would agree with you.
    Look what happened to Denis Horne last week . The probainers were all over him like a rash because of that plane crash.
    Just because they couldn’t refute the points he was making.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    What does get up my date are the repetitive attempts some commenters make in order to silence David Garrett through references to a previous mistake he made.

    It’s called the “Luigi the Pigfucker” phenomenon after an old joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. ShawnLH (6,611 comments) says:

    “Well ,if you want to be able to say you use your own name then you should do what David Garrett does, post under your christian and surname, ie Shawn Herles.”

    No. I can rightly say I post under my own name, even if it’s just my first name. There are very few people in NZ with my initials, let alone any married to an Anglican minister. I’m not hiding my identity, I have been very open about who I am and have posted my full name and email address here several times. If you disagree, that’s fine, but I really don’t care.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ David Garrett (6,778 comments) says:
    September 2nd, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    Sorry David, no I only read the last couple of posts.

    All’s good!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Shawn Herles (6,611 comments) says:

    Hello. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    David,
    Yeah, I think you are right. Can’t think of his name offhand. I seem to remember he had dyed his hair orange. But that sort of thing didn’t happen in my day, I can assure you of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Tom J: And a very good joke it is too…but I prefer the goatf…er version!

    I am interested that several people think reference to the passport offence are attempts to silence me…If so, they will never succeed. I am egotistical enough to think that, because of my parliamentary and life experience, I sometimes have something interesting to say. Rather like Rex Widerstrom, although he’s much better at those link thingies and has a wider recall of external references than me.

    It just becomes bloody tedious seeing “Have you apologised to the Mother yet?” day after day…(I have, in writing, 9 years ago when I was prosecuted)

    Muggins: Wasn’t it Jerry Collins, who later had a spot of bother in Japan??

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Gosh, I see I’m mentioned again. Sorry.

    Look, I post what I think, I am fully aware that many on here won’t agree – for that reason I try to post an explanation for why I believe what I do.

    If I had to moderate my posts, so they excluded what I know people would disagree with, we’d be left with platitudes – and is that really what you want?

    I have the belief that hearing an alternative argument, it gives power to your own opinion. I often read things on here that make me more aware of the alternative side, often it moderates my existing opinion.

    I’m also perfectly aware there are people that downtick me as soon as they see my name – I’ve never been intimidated by people disagreeing with me or simply not ‘liking’ me, so the ticks just don’t worry me. For that reason though, I think when moderation is decided due to the ticking system, you risk silencing any opposition – and is that also what you want? A board where people are to scared to challenge a fixed opinion, for fear of being banned?

    If the opinion you hold is the right one – then it should be able to withstand any challenges.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Yep, just googled it. Jerry Collins. And he was caught carrying a knife on his person in Japan, for protection , he said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    All Kiwiblog comments need mods
    Their authors are all tory clods
    Who rail against fags
    and feminist hags
    And worship fascist death squads.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Nookin (3,559 comments) says:

    I think David and Judith have knocked it on the head. No-one is able to say nasties about anyone else unless they have read everything that the “victim” has posted on the thread.
    Only problem is that this would give Griff, Shawn, Pete, Judith and all the other prolificeroes (David, I don’t give a stuff if it is a word or not) de facto immunity!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Judith
    You say you post what you think, but I reckon that sometimes you just want to stir the pot.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Please pardon our friend David Garrett
    Don’t repeat ancient slurs like a parrot
    Yes he is a bit dim
    and a convicted crim
    But to Kiwiblog he’s an asset

    Sorry Dave. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Shawn Herles (6,611 comments) says:

    Nookin 5:03

    Huh? What are you on about?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ David Garrett (6,780 comments) says:
    September 2nd, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    Okay I’ll confess – any digs I give you aren’t to silence you – you remind me of my brother – I provide those digs because just like him, you ‘bite’ every time! But it is a naughty game and I shall cease, but not concede – a lady never concedes! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Shawn Herles (6,611 comments) says:

    Cripes I change my displayed name and now all my comments are awaiting moderation. Ugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    Anarchy rules moderation drools.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Maggy Wassilieff (483 comments) says:

    I’m an intellectual snob in a white-trash sort of way and I get seriously pissed-off when some “worthy” moderates my postings.
    I’ve stopped visiting blog sites and newspaper comment sites that fail to post my comments.
    As I never posted abusive or ad-hominen comments, I can only assume that I was blocked because I was out-of-step with the wise ones ….. and if a harmless old chook like me was blocked, who else was being blocked? What points-of-view was I being denied?
    I can’t predict what views will surface on any topic in KB, and that surely is one of this blog’s strengths.
    I like KB’s immediacy; moderation could kill this blog’s vibrancy.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ muggins (3,298 comments) says:
    September 2nd, 2014 at 5:04 pm

    when I was a little tot I had the worlds most wonderful Grandfather. He’s been gone more than forty years, but what he taught me will never leave me. He gave me the gift on analysis – to never accept anything without question – to never believe there is only one answer unless you have explored all the alternatives.

    Yes, often I will raise a point that may not reflect my own opinion, but I will raise it because it provides a reason to question something that has been blindly accepted. I believe, as my Grandfather showed me, that not just any opinion will do – an opinion is only a worthwhile, if it is an informed one.

    but anyway, this is not about me, or what I believe – :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Rowan (2,604 comments) says:

    Muggins
    You are only ever referred to as a liar when you publish unsubstantiated untrue statements including opinions, heresay etc and try to pass it of as “facts”
    Saying something does not make it true

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Maggy: Very well said…I have had similar experiences at newspaper comment sites…such that I no longer bother with them…they very obviously take an “editorial line”, and no comment that challenges that stands much of a chance…so those sites become far more echo chambers than here..

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. wreck1080 (3,999 comments) says:

    “It’s called the “Luigi the Pigfucker” phenomenon after an old joke.”

    The joke I heard was ‘Giuseppe the g**tf*****”

    Such a powerful joke that could easily belong in aesops fables :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Saying something does not make it true

    “I am saying this”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Here we go,
    Rowan trying to discredit me just like the rest of those lying probainers do. They can’t stand reading the truth about their Daveyboy.
    Discredit, discredit, discredit. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are being paid to do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    Yawn, yawn……………………

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    To be fair, the one redeeming feature of Farrar, that exists despite his far right authoritarian love of squashing the aspirations of the poor and the weak, is that the man can take a joke.

    That’s not true of that fat cunt Bomber.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    muggins
    Stop the bain reference
    I am sure if this was a democracy we the comenteriate would ban you for baining on this thread
    Actually we would probably ban all the bain obsessed just because we could.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Judith
    With all due respect, I don’t give a damn what your grandfather told you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Rowan (2,604 comments) says:

    Muggy
    “The trouble with Bainiacs is that once the word Bain is mentioned on a thread [and this happened recently on the Who killed the Crewe’s thread where the David lovers tried to liken Thomas to Bain] the call goes out for reinforcements from both sides and what was a Crewe thread becomes a Bain thread.”

    Only became a Bain thread after being hijacked by yours truly and Stephieboy
    And you don’t know the meaning of “truth”, have yet to see any in any KB post from you!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson: DPF “far right”?? surely you jest?

    As for Bradbury, isn’t he an odious little man?…a classic example of a prick who like to post diatribes about others, but would never front up and do it to their faces…

    Dad4: If the topic is so boring, feel free to leave, and not waste either our time or yours…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Griff,
    Are you trying to dictate what I should or should not do?
    But fair enough . I won’t mention the B word again on this thread just so long as no-one else does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Here we go again.
    Rowan is lying again. The Crewe thread was highjacked by the B lovers long before I started posting on it.
    Rowan , you wouldn’t know how to tell the truth even if you were paid to tell it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    7,000th comment and its for you muggins.
    I dont actually give a fat fuck. Being a fully functioning adult in charge of a keyboard and mouse I can use the scroll wheel.
    I was sledging because it made me laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. dime (10,212 comments) says:

    How about a rule where one commentator hits a certain percentage of comments in one thread, they get the boot.

    Sometimes you have 10 out of 30 comments from one nutter. That’s ott.

    Look at this thread for example. Muggins is just painful. Can’t you say what you mean in a couple of posts?

    Moderator dime would give you a week in the wilderness.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    Given this is DPF’s blog and everyone commenting does so as a ‘guest’, we either accept the rules he wishes to set in place, or we pack our bongos and leave…..

    This said, I trust I will still be able to refer to morons as morons. Because describing them as ‘intellectually challenged’ doesn’t quite have the same ring to it… :D

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Nookin (3,559 comments) says:

    No one is stopping anyone mentioning “B–n”. Just bugger off to the Crewe thread where the discussion really belongs!!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Steve (North Shore) (4,536 comments) says:

    Generally Religious Debate would be a good idea. Then the god botherers and their baggage could be there instead of hijacking General Debate

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    Steve: Amen to that!! but I believe it has been tried, and the God botherers and Dawkinsists still manage to screw threads to debate endlessly that which will never be settled…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. MH (830 comments) says:

    they let Bainimarama into NZ. I’m sure he’s a cousin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    It been tried more than once Steve
    Flys like a pound of lead
    The god bothering refuse to stay there without an audience to preach at
    A Little like those who rehash old murder trails for intellectual stimulation.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    Hey Garrett what is a God botherer? Is it someone struggling with identity issues?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    Why not just police your demerit policy more assiduously ?

    100 points – For highly defamatory comments
    50 points – For grossly inflammatory comments with no redeeming quality
    35 points – For blatant trolling, highly inflammatory comments
    20 points – abusive language
    10 points – posting off topic
    5 points – For minor infractions, such as one inflammatory sentence in an otherwise good post

    Those are a decent summary of contributions that not only have no value but also detract from threads.

    GD would be reduced by several hundred comments a day within a week.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Shawn Herles (6,611 comments) says:

    “Generally Religious Debate would be a good idea. Then the god botherers and their baggage could be there instead of hijacking General Debate”

    You can’t highjack General Debate because it is GENERAL debate, about any topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    dad4: The irony of you doing a version of “have you apologised to the Mother yet?” on this thread will, I am sure, completely escape you.

    How many times have you been banned from here?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Shawn Herles (6,611 comments) says:

    “despite his far right authoritarian love of squashing the aspirations of the poor and the weak”

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz………………………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    Banned from a blog is trivial compared to be banned from parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. dog_eat_dog (785 comments) says:

    DPF, I’d suggest some red-button off-topic comments get specifically singled out for demerits – namely bringing up the religious stuff/abortion rubbish/jews did 9/11 truther shit in threads that have nothing to do with them. Over a long enough period of time, almost every thread on Kiwiblog would eventually devolve into one of those topics – it’s like your own Godwin’s law.

    I use forums where going OT and shitposting is an instant one week ban. Incidentally, they are the most enjoyable and interesting places I’ve seen yet online and I check them multiple times a day. Food for thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Rowan (2,604 comments) says:

    David
    The above nutter posts “facts” on your threads with nothing other than “trust me” as substantiation, it has been regularly shown to him through various sources that all his “facts” are nothing more than deliberate misrepresentations and lies. Yet he gets highly offended when he is caught out lying and then starts accusing everyone else of being a liar. Having proven that what he is saying is untrue then it should not be a punishable offence to call him a liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. rightoverlabour (132 comments) says:

    Hi all good, but lets hope i don’t get banned here too. I don’t think I write terribly inflammatory stuff and I am generally polite but might slip in the odd less than savory word when really frustrated! Best blog on the net and I now don’t read the one I got banned at as much any more. Pity, I enjoyed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. goldnkiwi (1,612 comments) says:

    So is there a mechanism that would allow, if one so wished, to change their pseudonym to their given name? Some would not wish to lose their comment count.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Rowan
    You couldn’t lie straight in bed.
    How did your stint with that stop/go sign go today? Hope you managed to get the sign the right way round at least 50% of the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Rowan gets so highly offended when he is called a liar, [and quite rightly so] that he turns around and calls all those that are telling the truth liars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. wrightingright (145 comments) says:

    I’m all for any change which leads to greater freedom in what can be said, rather than making it more restrictive.

    So my preference is leaving it as it is except for the #2 change to give some users even more flexibility in what they say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Griff,
    When you say you don’t give a fat fuck I take it that doesn’t necessarily mean you are one?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi – near the very bottom of the left hand side bar is Site Admin:
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-admin/profile.php

    You can’t change your username but you can change your “Display name publicly as”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    slij
    Forget the 5 and ten demerits, no-one is going to care if they are given 5 or 10 demerits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Rowan (2,604 comments) says:

    Since I don’t work as a stop/go man then you rabbiting that I do is more proof to everyone that you are a liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Rowan (2,604 comments) says:

    Oh look the broken record can only parrot back others posts back at them. How very original!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    This thread is brilliant.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    Just imagine what I can do when I become a moderator Mr Garrett. Step outside please sir :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. EAD (1,450 comments) says:

    EAD’s 2 cents:

    No moderation – the free flow of ideas is important if a democracy is to survive. The “Political Correctness” thought control process already stimies peoples ability to communicate clearly so why would you want to put up more restrictions. If there was to be moderation – maybe limit people to no more than 5 posts on a thread then we wouldn’t be subject to UglyTruth & ShaunLH arguing over obscure bible passages when they’d be better off emailing each other.

    Keep Pseudonyms – this ties into point 1 above. When we see people losing their jobs for “extreme” positions like opposing gay marriage in our Brave New World Order then many people will limit what they say. I’m not a John Ansell or Colin Craig with steel balls to stand against the tide of the PC police and call bulls*it on so much of what is wrong with out society. I am happy to debate in an open forum in public under my real name but in the age of the internet, anything I say can be used against me at any time in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Daphne Whitethigh (16 comments) says:

    More moderation to disallow aggressively sexist language would improve the site and I suspect broaden its appeal. For example, comments like these overstep the mark, and shouldn’t be accepted:

    – I wonder if she’s a screamer in the sack as well?

    – You have to laugh- some stupid young little bubblehead bitch on the news said something like is was a ‘wonderful’ thing that had happened.

    – Her new tits and all this publicity will help her career among her terminally shallow fans. She is not going to be flat chested with her tits cut off in the way this is portrayed.

    – We wasted countless millions buying a sinecure job for the Bilious Bitch at the UN.

    – I bet this stupid bint uttered the now infamous line “don’t you know who I am”?

    – She is a dumb stupid cow.

    – (BTW – the lezza on Back Benches ? – as MPs go – what an inarticulate stupid cow struggling away – she was rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Sublime (296 comments) says:

    Seems fair, DPF. It’s your turf and the new guidelines sound about right.

    Always enjoy coming here and I’m sure I will for a long time to come.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson: DPF “far right”?? surely you jest?

    Nevah!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. David Garrett (7,698 comments) says:

    …except you are not joking, and might really believe you would qualify as a moderator…

    But you didn’t answer my simple question…How many times have you been banned from here??

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    Lighten up Garrett you sad arse prick. I have been banned as many times as you have disgraced New Zealand and told to leave parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Viking2 (11,672 comments) says:

    Note to (some of) our commenters
    by Pete on September 2, 2014 at 3:15pm

    Message: Hi Guys
    Just saw that my general debate post [ redacted ]
    being in bad taste has been deleted. I’ve checked the guidelines and
    cant find why this would be the case. No big drama but would be
    interested to know why is all. Cheers

    We have no time for things like this. Stop emailing Cameron Slater and demanding explanations for moderating decisions. It’s a near certain way to get sidelined for being annoying and a time waster. There are over a quarter million readers our there, and we have a job to do. Moderators, nor Cam, have the time to pander to your bruised egos or puzzled minds because a comment got moderated out.

    On behalf of the moderation team…

    That’s all.
    ===================

    Is this what you want?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    If DPF does go down the horrid road of having moderators then here is one simple rule that I think he should follow.

    Anybody who puts themselves forward to be a moderator should be the first people crossed off the list.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Alan Wilkinson (1,933 comments) says:

    I use my real name but see no point in having different standards for that. As I said before, don’t delay posts for moderation. If you do I’ll be less likely to comment and read here. Better still just moderate based on reports.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Nostradamus (2,427 comments) says:

    Big Bruv:

    Anybody who puts themselves forward to be a moderator should be the first people crossed off the list.

    That rules out D4J then!

    dad4justice (7,980 comments) says:
    September 2nd, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    Just imagine what I can do when I become a moderator Mr Garrett. Step outside please sir

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    The only change I would like to see is minus to be outed so we can belittle and humiliate the retarded old loser until he has another massive melt down or leaves kb for good.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    Nos.

    Indeed it does. Along with Pete and all the other control freaks.

    Personally, I would nominate Dime if he had the time to spare, although, its not going to be easy dragging him away from the hookers.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/utm8zvwd7q00xl1/Wankstain%206.jpg?dl=0

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    Just imagine everybody having to use their real names? The keyboard cowards would have to slither back into the snake pit.It would make kiwiblog a far better place.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    So d4j you are wishing your good buddy redbalther to slither off
    Id rather he stays his posts always make me laugh
    such sublime parody of a truly insane RWNJ carried for years.. amazing stuff.
    :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Nostradamus (2,427 comments) says:

    D4J:

    The only thing you need to know (and this is relevant in the context of a discussion about moderation): 110 demerits in 22 minutes!

    By the way, D4J, you talk a lot about emails lately. Could you enlighten the rest of us as to what DPF was referring to when he wrote:

    [DPF: You should see the e-mails he [D4J] is sending me. I may blog them tomorrow!]

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    No Gripp I was thinking about big bigots , nos no life narks and general cowards like yourself. Reds real name is mentioned on here everyday you moron.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Black with a Vengeance (1,868 comments) says:

    Would Mr Fletcher be as big a loudmouthed fucktard if he posted under his real name as opposed to redbaiter?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    D4j
    see my 7:19
    and consider who is the coward.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    Nos

    Ah yes, the magical 22 minutes. What a fun evening that was, and I had nothing to do with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    And for the LAST fucking time Gripper I don’t bother voting you insane creep. Such trivial bullshit is not my style. I leave that for the jellyfish cowards who think it matters. Just like the no life wimps who link past threads and wank on all day about someone giving them the thumbs down. Pathetic cowards make me sick.

    bigot blouse and nos get big hard on’s trying to stir me up. What sad no life creeps these sicko’s are. Must have nothing better to do. Sad eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    One thing I haven’t mentioned is that I reckon there should be a better way to let a poster know he/she has been given demerits. The way it is now is a poster can be given demerits for something they posted the day before, how are they going to know that? Only the other day a poster was warned he was now up to 90 demerits and until I pointed that out to him he wasn’t aware of that.
    I am on 80 demerits and the reason I am on 80 demerits is because a year or so ago I kept referring to a poster as a double killer [which he is] . DF kept giving me 20 demerits each time I posted that and he wasn’t until he sent me a message to tell me I couldn’t refer to that poster as a double killer even though he was that I knew I had received any demerits.
    The rule on that seems to have changed now because I see another person has referred to that poster as a killer and he hasn’t received any demerits for doing so. Strictly speaking I reckon I should have those 80 demerits rescinded.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    Was that outburst a portent of a MELTDOWN to come minus d4j?
    please do we find meltdowns sooo much fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    110 demerits in sub 21 minutes is the goal.

    Your time starts NOW! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Nostradamus (2,427 comments) says:

    Nasska:

    Your time starts NOW!

    Let me kick off:

    dad4justice (7,981 comments) says:
    December 9th, 2011 at 9:23 pm

    I do wonder if Peter davis has a redzone pass to the public toilet?

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Re: real names. Two problems (and yea, someone has mentioned these but I thought I’d do it again :)

    1. Real names often aren’t real. People can post what appears to be a real name, but isn’t, or they may post under someone else’s real name, to discredit that person.

    2. Pseudonyms can be very long-standing. I have been using mine in various places for 8 years and it’s far better known than my real name.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    Five minutes gone already Nostra….he must be handicapping himself to make it a sporting event. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    Nos

    Have you noticed that he has a strange fascination with all things Gay?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    I am on 80 demerits and the reason I am on 80 demerits is because a year or so ago I kept referring to a poster as a double killer [which he is] . DF kept giving me 20 demerits each time I posted that and he wasn’t until he sent me a message to tell me I couldn’t refer to that poster as a double killer even though he was that I knew I had received any demerits.

    Well, I think the real problem there is actually something you can change yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    To many keyboard jellyfish here for me to clean fight. I do wonder if Mr Farrar ever has a kiwiblog social reunion, it would be funny only real names could drink at bar and have a laugh and the poor anonymous cowards would be out back hiding with thumbs up their wimpish arses.

    We could erect a sign at the door “Only those with a backbone at bar please, jellyfish out back in the car-park please.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    Would Peter Davis be at this bar D4J?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/08/the_hager_book-2.html
    How the heck did Ugly not get banned for his attempted (and extremely annoying) hijacking of this thread?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    The problem with moderation is the previous comments would get “us” banned. trolling of topic and abusive
    taking the fun out of kb and leaving it a pale imitation of the real thing.

    scrubone my real name doesn’t show up any where on the internet… even on the electoral roll and car reregistration etc I use a care of address … Griff has gravitas and means something here, my actual name is totally meaningless in reference to kb and untraceable by any one.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Nostradamus (2,427 comments) says:

    D4J:

    jellyfish out back in the car-park please.

    That sounds like a subliminal message?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    “Would Peter Davis be at this bar D4J?”

    If he posted here under his REAL NAME then why not. Can you tell your nark creepy mate Nos, I don’t talk to yellowback weak gutted non identities.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    “Five minutes gone already Nostra….he must be handicapping himself to make it a sporting event”

    Or rushing down to the TAB so he can win another $20,000
    Or rushing off for a date with Richie
    Or going duck hunting…without a gun license
    Or going “away” for eighteen months and offering no explanation for why he was “away” for so long.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    More moderation to disallow aggressively sexist language would improve the site and I suspect broaden its appeal. For example, comments like these overstep the mark, and shouldn’t be accepted:

    I have never, and will (at least, I hope) never make comments like the ones you listed.

    However, I will defend's people's right to show others just how ugly they feel they need to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    “If he posted here under his REAL NAME then why not.”

    So you think he would want to have a beer with you even allowing for the slanderous things you have said about him?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    So dad … I can call you dad? how did you end up with a monicker like” dad” was it you parents version of sue ? or did you change it by deed poll?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Maybe a shut-off time on threads would be worth consideration.

    For example, this thread on moderation is now straying a bit. I mean, what’s Johny Cash doing on this thread singing a A Boy Called Sue. The threads often digress as the night wears on.

    Now, it’s evening, and it’s first quarter of the Moon in NZ. Perhaps DPF could get the guy who does the weather forecasts based on the moon, to give him poster barking forecasts to set closing times for threads.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    “Slanderous things”

    bigot blouse -I have not been charged for my comments and while we are at it can you please post on this appropriate thread the threatening and sexually explicit emails that I allegedly sent you so all can read them. When will your pathological lies stop? I hope the new changes coming make people like you fall on their rusty sword.

    Nos can you ask bigot blouse for the alleged emails so you can post them. A cowardly creep like you would love to do that!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Nostradamus (2,427 comments) says:

    Big Bruv:

    D4J claimed that he doesn’t drink. It’s probably for the best – or another lie – take your pick.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    my actual name is totally meaningless in reference to kb and untraceable by any one.

    So… your surname is Conner? :P

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    Nos

    I’m picking it as another lie to be honest.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    D4J

    You said some very nasty things about Peter Davis, things that have never been proven. At the very least you owe Mr Davis an apology.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    nope
    Lazarus Long

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    I apologize to Mr Davis after you post the emails that I allegedly sent you. A lying dog has lots of keyboard fleas.

    “I’m picking it as another lie to be honest.”

    Liars make me sick. You are the biggest liar on kiwiblog bb.You wouldn’t know the meaning of the word honesty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    Come on D4J, do the decent thing. Apologise to the man for your slanderous accusations.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    Hey Nos can you find the thread where bigot blouse claimed to have in his possession emails I sent him. Go on Nos you can find it eh? Lol yeah right, fleas attract fleas. Are you going to let bigot blouse make slanderous accusations? Come on Nos show me you got a backbone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. dime (10,212 comments) says:

    “Anybody who puts themselves forward to be a moderator should be the first people crossed off the list.”

    great policy!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Dumb sheepherders from the Nui should always be given the benefit of the doubt! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Folk that can fly should be given space…….Johnboy, Kea, dad/Richie! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    d4j
    Please enlighten me.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Testing, testing

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Michael (3,828 comments) says:

    Testing, testing

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. Aredhel777 (292 comments) says:

    Redbaiter for chief moderator.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Michael (3,828 comments) says:

    I see Rowan is saying he isn’t a stop/go sign operator, but what proof do we have of that?
    Of course I guess he could be an assistant stop/go sign operator.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    If the purpose of moderating KB is to attract more bloggers then what’s the point of asking the regulars?

    Personally I don’t care how much abuse is hurled at me. Insults from anonymous writers are nothing more than words on my screen.

    On the Crewe thread, now a Bain thread, xylophilus tried to belittle me and discredit my analysis of the case, because I crashed an aircraft trying to take off from a beach after a forced landing due to engine failure. No one was hurt.

    I am not deterred from searching for the truth by such tactics, which say more about the user than the recipient. The attack was of quite a different nature to the teasing by Nostalgia, whom I tease mercilessly in return. It was calculated, possibly by someone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Where is Kea? And UglyRuth?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Michael (3,828 comments) says:

    I notice xylo went to ground when I mentioned those sockprints. I wonder why?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Fine bit of aviating if I may say so Dennis! :)

    Never make any future forced landing just across from a darkened doorway though if you can help it! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    Kea’s on an enforced holiday until the 20th Dennis.

    Ugly may have been called up to fight with the Hamas.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Rowan (2,604 comments) says:

    D4J
    Bigot Blouse is the second biggest liar KB, by far the biggest is Muggins, look at any of his contributions to the Bain threads! It shouldn’t take more than a couple of lines anywhere in his posts to spot another of his lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    “Bigot Blouse is the second biggest liar KB”

    True he said Orie’s would win the Jubilee Cup! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. deadrightkev (608 comments) says:

    Don’t change Kiwiblog.

    I used to hate KB because of some National wowsers and Labour drop kicks here but they are kinda cute in a retarded sorta way. They deserve a platform to trumpet their awful progressivism.

    Whaleoil blocks anyone that disagrees with him or his moderator Baldrick. WO will fall away in volume because people have lost faith in his ability to be objective. He is damaged goods and no one will what he is doing behind the scenes is legit anymore.

    I enjoy reading Redbaiters comments as they are 99.9% true and said via a passionate of deep seated conviction. Its real activist politics. If you turn this blog into the sound of music I will piss off for sure as I have from Slater’s sickly love in.

    Keep things the same DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Thanks, guys. I enjoyed Kea’s comments, and UglyRuth is a fascinating case.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. MH (830 comments) says:

    maybe known political blogists thoughts could be coloured blue for conservatives, red for lefties, green etc or we could select the colour depending on mood, conciliatory. Commies and gays would have no choice, even those coming out from closets and those crawling back under the bed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. Rowan (2,604 comments) says:

    Michael
    Likewise using your same argument I don’t have any proof that you are not a male prostitute. Based solely on my allegation does this make you a male prostitute?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. Rowan (2,604 comments) says:

    Oh look Muggins has renamed itself, your comment about the xylo and the sockprints gave you away Muggy! That and you have exactly the same amount of comments!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. Richard (885 comments) says:

    I just flicked to the bottom of this thread to see how it ended up: something about male prostitutes.
    Based on that- yes DPF you need moderation in posts on specific issues. General debates can be lightly moderated and left for the angry, the mad , the Trolls and comedians.
    Real names issues- real names or not there should be a consistent moderation in posts on specific issues. Just because someone puts there real name up doesn’t mean that’s a right to post racist or bigoted bullshit. Let’s take a hypothetical example:
    Example: the Jews deserve everything they got in the Holocaust, should have killed more of the fuckers and their children.
    No one would want that sort of thing I’ve just written smeared across kiwiblog- shouldn’t matter if their using their real name or not

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Make me a mod. I’ll subtly edit Redbaiter’s posts to make him appear homosexual.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Redbaiter for chief moderator.

    Everyone would be banned for being communists.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. SGA (1,252 comments) says:

    Maybe this thread is a good example of what often happens to “specific topic” threads. Yes, they might drift “off topic” and get increasingly Pythonesque, but that tends to be after all the obvious “on-topic” comments, criticisms, and observations have been covered. Limited to relevant “on-topic” content, this thread would have been largely over in a couple of hours. Just a thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    SGA. Just a thought.

    My thoughts exactly. You’re obviously learning and beginning to think straight since we were on the Bainy thread. :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. Left Right and Centre (3,007 comments) says:

    (i) If anything, change nothing.

    (ii) It’s not my blog of course – if it was – I wouldn’t ban anyone unless they were just being such an insufferable total total total nasty knob hater that they really had to take a hike. And even then – I wouldn’t ban them / demerit them first up – I’d warn them and tell them roughly where the line is and give some examples or something.

    I’m not a fan of the double length of time ban each time after each 100 demerits. It just makes the place more boring than need be with people having to watch it lest they cop a short or maybe their next one is a stupidly long sentence. It’s easy to have a bad day or type something *that you really think isn’t something demerit worthy* and bang – you’re outta here or collecting nails in the demrit coffin. Warnings beat bans. With a warning you can say – ‘can’t say I didn’t warn you toerag’ (and give guidance on what is and isn’t acceptable). I think Kea had a snakes and ladders style increase in sentence, didn’t he ? He went right down one of the big snakes with four months – wasn’t his next one meant to be a month ? I might have that wrong. He was attacking blog owner – well – it wasn’t a total shock. It’s still arbitrary – so although way better than Stuff which is a load of old shit – KB is far from a total free for all . . .

    . . . I don’t know. When you find yourself having to watch everything all the time you think this is fuckin soft. I’m a big boy what is the point of this shit ? And you can say you don’t have to be here and you’re right – it affects how often I can be arsed looking when I know that every prick has to be on their best behaviour like the Queen has popped round for a visit and shitting themselves about what to them seems like a fairly soft comment but some delicate easily-offended thin-skinned wowser dobs them in.

    I saw someone else post about racking up demerits for the same thing in one day; unaware of it happening – like a speeder not knowing they’re being pinged by the same camera trip after trip. That’s a bit dumb – let’s face it.

    Less restriction, less moderation. Freedom of thought and expression. This place is a million times better than say Stuff comments section. And the commenters are a lot smarter overall.

    from BeaB:

    Why are Kiwis, even on Kiwiblog, so obsessed with rules and control?
    Let at least the blogs be free.
    Anything obnoxious will soon be thumbed down by the readers.
    Leave bans, censorship and mind control to the Left.

    and –

    Perhaps some of you would be happier with the NZ Women’s Weekly. No rude words or nasty people saying nasty things.
    What is wrong with freedom of expression? I can agree or not. I can read or not. I can thumbs up or down. I can frown or smile. I am not going to faint because someone uses a rude word.
    Are we in kindergarten or on an adult blog?
    Soon, if some of you have your way, there’ll be so many rules we’ll be spending all our time reading them instead of posting a comment.

    Well said – exquisite posting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. Michael (3,828 comments) says:

    I have decided to “half-out” myself, sort of like Shawn.
    I wasn’t aware one could change ones posting name until I saw a link showing how to do it on this thread.
    Rowan has mentioned male prostitutes, I wonder why he would be thinking about male prostitutes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. Michael (3,828 comments) says:

    Beab posts
    Why are Kiwis ,even on kiwiblog ,so obsessed with rules and control to which I would argue
    Why are some Kiwis so obsessed with abusing other Kiwis. If it weren’t for them there would be no need for rules and controls.

    Beab posts.
    Let at least the blogs be free to which I would answer
    The blogs should be free , but only to those possessed of common courtesy.

    Beab posts
    Anything obnoxious will soon be thumbed down by the readers.
    Does Beab really believe that an obnoxious poster would give two hoots about being thumbed down.
    Who goes back to a post they have made to see how many thumbs down they have , anyway? I sure don’t.

    Beab posts
    Leave bans , censorship and mind control to the left.
    So is Beab implying that only the left want bans censorship and mind control.? If all posters behaved themselves then there would be no need for censorship and no need for bans. I don’t understand the reference to mind control, the only person controlling my mind is me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. Michael (3,828 comments) says:

    L,R&C

    Yes, we are posting on an adult blog, but unfortunately some posters behave as if they are still in kindergarten.
    Nothing wrong with freedom of expression, but how many posters check to see if what they have posted has been thumbed up or down ?
    I believe that anyone with a modicum of commonsense would be well aware of what is acceptable behaviour without having to refer to the rules.
    As to rude words. I can use rude words as much as the next person, but are they really necessary ?
    There was a movie on TV last weekend about an Irish cop. The reviewer gave it four stars so my wife and I thought it might be worth a look. Within 5 minutes that cop had used the f word about 20 times. We ceased watching at that point. It was gratuitous use of foul language, nothing more, nothing less. None of my adult children are given to swearing, I rarely swear, my wife never swears, I do not understand why some people seem to think it is necessary to use foul language.
    I worked in an office for over 40 years, very rarely did anyone swear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    I think the level of moderation is fine at the moment. Serial offenders get pinged and removed. My only suggestion would be to drop the idiotic thumbs up/down, which add nothing to the discussion.

    2. Should greater leeway be given to people who post under their own names, or are clearly identifiable?

    I think the rules should be the same for everyone.

    But people who post under their real names should have the power to delete other people’s comments once per day, at their discretion, with real-namers being immune to this power.

    (Kidding.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. mcardnas (84 comments) says:

    my insignificant opinion
    in the non second i have been here.
    prefer not to be moderated by anyone other than my self and as a grown up im pretty sure i can do that for myself.
    i AM using my real name just slightly coded. if youR real smart you just might figure it out

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. mcardnas (84 comments) says:

    that should say nano . grrr

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. SGA (1,252 comments) says:

    @mcardnas at 9:42 am

    if youR real smart you just might figure it out

    XX not XY, then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. Michael (3,828 comments) says:

    Mcardarse?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. mcardnas (84 comments) says:

    Awww come on your not even trying!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ DPF

    I’ve been thinking about this moderation thing, and come to this conclusion David.

    This is your blog, it is not ‘our’ blog. Whilst we use it, primarily you started it, and ‘own’ it.

    I would encourage you to think about what your original purpose was for starting it, and consider what it has morphed into.
    Is that what you wanted, or if not, is it better or worse than than what you would like?

    When considering the future rules & regulations for this blog, I think you need to consider the vision you have for it. Then adjust the moderation so that it enables you to achieve that vision.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. Rowan (2,604 comments) says:

    Muggins/Micheal
    The point I was making is about proof, something which you don’t understand the concept of at all. You are going to have to do better than “trust me” if you want someone to believe anything you say. You have no proof that I am a stop/go man (which I am not) yet this doesn’t stop you from proclaiming it as “fact” just like pretty much every single other “fact” you have contributed to KB!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. Tinshed (170 comments) says:

    Maybe too late to make this point but one feature I would like to see is the ability to see who up-votes and who down-votes comments. It often surprises me who actually down-votes certain comments (and just not mine!) but I have no way of knowing. I am all for transparency and I think this would be a good feature to have.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. gump (1,683 comments) says:

    I’d like to see moderation reserved for material that’s truly offensive or nonsensical.

    I think Kiwiblog stands out amongst the other blogs because of its light handed moderation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. Michael (3,828 comments) says:

    Copied from Whaleoil’s blog.
    Commenting on Whaleoil articles is extended as a privilege, not a right. Anyone can comment on Whaleoil articles, but if you don’t follow some basic rules, your comments will be deleted.

    In cases where your comments are regularly deleted, or are intentionally destructive, your commenting access may be denied altogether. Whaleoil has little to no patience with people who try to disrupt the smooth operation of the blog.

    At the risk of appearing pedantic, but for the sake of preciseness, here are the rules Whaleoil applies when moderating comments

    Stick to the topic, except for any “general debate” type posts
    Don’t tell lies
    Keep the language clean. Also no masking and abbreviating (BS, FFS, 5#1T,C..T,B I T C H, etc)
    No promotion without prior approval, especially self promotion
    Keep it legal, or you will be made a co-defendant in any legal action
    Do not break or otherwise toy with breaking name suppression by trying to be ‘clever’
    “Don’t be a dick” (means: no trolling, no “me too”, “first” or other zero calorie content)
    The “get a life” rule: If you are regularly responsible for more than 1/3rd of the comments on an article, or you regularly comment on more than 2/3rd of the articles most days a week, then you need to get a life and allow others’ voices a chance to shine through.
    No inflammatory language (This is where you righty wankers have got it all wrong…, etc)
    Being critical of, drawing attention to, or ridiculing another’s spelling or grammar is off topic and not allowed
    No repetitive comments or repeating of exact comments, especially between articles
    Any concerns about moderation are to be expressed via email
    If you edit a comment for more than spelling, punctuation or grammar, thus adding, removing or changing the content so it means something else, you must indicate this somehow as part of your edit. Not doing so may cause your access to commenting to be withdrawn.
    Deliberately offensive aliases and/or avatar images may see your account blocked from commenting.
    Take care with photos. No nudity, be extremely careful if the photo contains children, no mutilation, corpses, sex or porn (simulated or not), wounds, anything deliberately rude or offensive captions, etc, etc
    Do not threaten to kill, harm or otherwise injure anyone, even in jest.
    No personal attacks on Whaleoil staff, other commenters, or anyone else for that matter
    If you see someone else troll DO NOT REPLY. If you reply, you risk being seen as part of the problem (no, we don’t care “who started it”).
    Do not copy whole articles into comments. Comments are for YOUR views. Post a link, perhaps a snippet, and it better have something that you want to write about it as well. Just content from somewhere else will be deleted.
    Do not address comments to Cameron Slater or other blog staff – use email
    Just because certain language may be part of a headline or article doesn’t clear it for use in the comments
    If in doubt, leave it out
    Knowingly breaking the rules can result in an instant, irrevocable, ban
    Moderation isn’t “fair” and it may not be balanced. It is performed by a number of people, so there will be variances. These people will also have better days and average days. But any attempt to generate public debate on moderation will be deemed off-topic. Any and all concerns about moderation should be directed to Whaleoil staff via the Contact page.

    Whaleoil will never delete comments from people who disagree based on their view of the facts of a given situation. However, many such comments also stray into attacking the blog staff, other commenters or other people at the same time.
    Whaleoil will never delete comments from people who disagree based on their view of the facts of a given situation. However, many such comments also stray into attacking the blog staff, other commenters or other people at the same time. When such comments are removed, they perceive this as being censored for their views, and not for their behaviour. Whaleoil encourages everyone to try out commenting with opposing views without at the same time attacking or undermining people or the blog staff, and be pleasantly surprised their comments will remain published.

    Warning to long term commenters: your tenure counts for nothing. It doesn’t give you license to get away with more or have blog staff look the other way.

    Whaleoil will never delete comments from people who disagree based on their view of the facts of a given situation. However, many such comments also stray into attacking the blog staff, other commenters or other people at the same time. When such comments are removed, they perceive this as being censored for their views, and not for their behaviour. Whaleoil encourages everyone to try out commenting with opposing views without at the same time attacking or undermining people or the blog staff, and be pleasantly surprised their comments will remain published.

    Warning to long term commenters: your tenure counts for nothing. It doesn’t give you license to get away with more or have blog staff look the other way.

    Whaleoil will never delete comments from people who disagree based on their view of the facts of a given situation. However, many such comments also stray into attacking the blog staff, other commenters or other people at the same time. When such comments are removed, they perceive this as being censored for their views, and not for their behaviour. Whaleoil encourages everyone to try out commenting with opposing views without at the same time attacking or undermining people or the blog staff, and be pleasantly surprised their comments will remain published.

    Warning to long term commenters: your tenure counts for nothing. It doesn’t give you license to get away with more or have blog staff look the other way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. Left Right and Centre (3,007 comments) says:

    Michael – well I’m sure that the movie came with a warning for ‘offensive’ language at the start – and for people who might be offended they will have to make the effort to check the rating first – you’ve got the internet of course or TV listings to check. The reviewer of course might be totally different to you in terms of tastes and preferences so you need to use some common sense when reading a review. Reviewed by who for whom exactly ?

    Swearing is one of things that divides people up into yes / no classes. I enjoy swearing. It might be the best part of life. After eating maybe. Tone of voice is much more important. And how you swear. Dickheads sound horrible whether they swear or not. Smart people sound smart whether they swear or not.

    You don’t like swearing in general. I do. I don’t like tattoos. Other people do. To each their own. One person defines language as ‘gratuitous’ use of ‘foul language’. I don’t even think of swear words as swear words. Just words. They don’t offend me. Someone swearing cracks me up. There’s plenty of offensive speaking voices out there – tune in to talkback and you’ll hear them – 60-70% of the callers. And there’s no swearing allowed on talkback but the sound of the dreadful voices – yeurgh – stupid or dreary or droning or deathly or twangy. Now that’s offensive. I can tell which ones swear when they’re not on-air too – no trouble. And even when I don’t swear other people feel comfortable lowering their guard and swearing – cool people swear – wowsers stick to Forrest Gump and G rated family schlock. I take it you wouldn’t be able to watch something like ‘7 days’ or ‘Jono and Ben At Ten’ either – there’s swearing there too. ‘Chopper Read’ is one seriously funny fucker on 7 Days – and part of it is certainly a few well timed ‘fucks’. It has its place. You know – for the cool grown-up folks.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. Unity (633 comments) says:

    I consider people who find it necessary to ‘colour'(?!) their language with foul language to be ignorant and badly brought up. We have a lovely language without fouling it with expletives. Some people can’t string a sentence together without adding disgusting language that bears no relationship to what they are trying to say and they immediately go down in my estimation as soon as they open their mouths and I switch off listening to the rest of what they have to say. No, I’m definitely not a snob but I most certainly don’t like our language sullied in this way. There are enough English words to explain what one is trying to say as it is.

    I also have a dislike of tattoos and really wonder how that person will feel about their body as they age and the tattoos twist and sag with the ageing skin. Absolutely awful and so permanent although I know they can be removed with difficulty. Lovely young women with their bodies ruined in my eyes. Why do they do this to themselves? They certainly don’t look cool – quite the reverse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote