I recently outed someone who commented on Red Alert on an issue they were very close to but used a pseudonym. Admin thought it was unusual. Clare told me she wanted to talk about it. Grant was more direct. I was admonished.
But now an interesting issue has arisen.
Ministerial staffers are commenting on Red Alert from the Beehive - during normal working hours – using pseudonyms.
We have always known they monitor our blog. Several Ministers read it daily as well.
But is it really part of their job to comment? And if it is should they be transparent as we are when we post here and comment on other blogs.
And if they aren’t should we out them?
Interesting issue – causing debate in our team. We would welcome your views.
” Your comment is awaiting moderation”
Good grief, is naming T.. E…. a key word for …… ?
Wow, it must be.
Is that supression of freedom of speech?
I’ve always used my real name, and have no problems with people searching. Many years ago, I had it drummed in to me, “Don’t say anything in an email (or on the web) that you would not want on the front page of the Dom” (or NZH / Press / etc). So I try to keep that in mind when I comment.
On the question of staffers, the Beehive has always been a high-testosterone (-oestregen) environment, with staffers wanting to go into their battle for their Ministers. Considering my experience and weighing the balance, I think anyone in the complex from any party commenting on any blog should be identified as being in the Parliamentary complex as a minimum.
I would love to see miT sillE return. I never noted anything said that violated the site rules AND alternative views should be what this blog site is about. The Std is the site for the left to hug and kiss BUT all they to is agree .. what value is that to a party that need none members to come on board?
@Pentwig “supression of freedom of speech”?
I don’t think so. You are free to say what you want. But Red Alert isn’t obliged to provide the soapbox each and every time.
That said, the rules governing moderation by the RA software do seem pretty esoteric*. And everybody knows what esoteric means.
@jabba – hey they let you back in
so far dupS
pretty tight probation tho – esp if you head off topic
I think it’s fair for readers to know the difference between a staffer placing comments to make their minister look better, and a concerned member of the community.
Not sure what I think about revealing names though.
They should at least be identified a Ministerial (or ,indeed, opposition) staffers.
That way the minority of us who are genuinely interested in a particular debate know where self interested ones are. Most of the non parliamentary contributors make it very clear with their opinions.
The Red Alert admin group will discuss this on Tuesday but I’m heading towards the DPF view expressed at 9.27am yesterday ie encourage people to comment in own names but only out to Police for illegality or in cases of exceptional gross abuse or gross hypocrisy. Not quite sure how to express it but people who actively and deliberately attempt to lead us to believe they are not employed in the Beehive when in fact they are would come into the gross abuse group but just making up a name wouldn’t.
Area not yet covered is whether there should be warnings and whether they should be by direct email or on this site and whether they should be in all cases or just for marginal cases.
I’m not sure that I can keep commenting if I’m forced to use my own name.
Spud this is about people who work in the building – or people who we know work in the building. You know that I am fascinated with who you might be – even to the extent of trying to physically isolate a suspect (wasn’t him) – have never had evidence that you are based at parliament.
This thread only applies to those people.
That’s a relief.
I’m aware of repercussions from comments on this site that could only have come from the Beehive.
But I hope those people in Ministers’ offices learn something from some of the informed comments here, especially from people on the front line. The threads on cutting gifted and talented education, cuts to night classes, and some of the industrial disputes, have been particularly illuminating.
I don’t think everyone should have to reveal their actual names, but I do think that if someone here is trolling on behalf of a minister or something to that effect, I’d like to have some sort of heads up. It would help put some comments into perspective.
Cal has put in a nutshell what many of us have been trying to say on this thread. I believe we are entitled to know if someone is commenting on behalf of the Nact government or an individual minister. A principled person would not hesitate to divulge their professional interest but, as we well know, not all Nact supporters – or staffers – are principled.
Anne. Please don’t forget the pot and kettle will you when discussing principles.
@ Richard Morgan – predictable.
So? Your comment wasn’t??
I’d be treading very carefully here… first and foremost, there is the question of why you think this is necessary. Evidently you think that someone working for the government is screwing the scrum. Blog networks usually have the ability to self regulate behaviours such as that, so what added advantage does this naming and shaming serve? I’m not sure what the problem is here…
I see a lot of comments from people that expect to know when someone is working for a minister. I’m not sure that is relevant – surely these people have private interests and opinions too (and if so, all the more reason to submit them via another name). Forcing disclosure based on their employment seems to fly in the face of free and frank discussion.
Being able to participate anonymously is one of the things that makes blogging such a vibrant and successful commuicating platform. There are plenty of reasons as to why someone may not wish to be known, and not all of them are nefarious. A commenter’s right to privacy should be protected.
So, what would I suggest:
1. A policy for this blog that clearly states when and for what behaviours you will name someone out. People deserve the opportunity to conform first!
2. Warnings prior to naming them, to allow retraction. You have everyone’s email addresses, so why not use them?
3. Then and only then should you name them out. But be careful that you aren’t trying to start some sort of lynching of the person eh?
It would seem that National Ltd® and its Crosby/Textor puppeteers have adopted the $cientology Cult approach to dealing with criticism and the practising of “fair game” when dealing with apparent opponents. One need look no further than the example set by Basher Bennett setting those two women up for a public kicking as to what’s in store for anyone in a vulnerable position who dares voice dissent.
Although it makes my skin crawl, I would have to come down on the side of promoting free speech for everyone rather than for just those I would agree with. If it should transpire, however, that the anon National Ltd® staffers are seeking to silence debate, rather than adding to it, then, yeah, nail them. Also, if it becomes apparent that the National Ltd® staffers are spending significant amounts of time (i.e., our tax money) dedicating their energies to trolling, that’s another issue which might be better dealt with by Questions in the House.
My preferred outcome from your deliberations tomorrow would be to maintain existing moderation policy, but adopt a “wait and see” attitude towards the National Ltd® trolls. It may well transpire that the issue will dissolve thanks to this post but, please, keep us informed if the situation persists.
FWIW at this late stage, any policy that encourages people to post under their own names is positive as it tends to moderate the extremes. It does also, as others may have already observed, limit some people who unable to express views that are inconsistent with their employment etc.
[...] Great discussion over the last few days. Range of views and that’s not a surprise. [...]
It’s a good call that you all made.