I thought it might be time to have a chat about our moderation policy on Red Alert.
It’s been a while since we told you all what it is, and it’s important that we remember that new people view Red Alert all the time; there are new commenters. And some of the existing ones can forget.
I thought it might also be useful to say a few words to anyone who has transgressed the policy and found themself “in moderation” (where their comments get held up until they have been vetted and approved. Or worse, have been banned.
The Red Alert moderators (myself, Trevor, Grant and Chris) will review your status if you ask us to.
Here’s the moderation policy:
- Keep it relevant to the post.
- Keep it clean. Don’t use offensive language. We’re tolerant, but we use the test of wanting to have intermediate age school kids using this site for research.
- Don’t make it personal. Stick to the issues rather than the person. By all means criticise what people have said or done, but do it in a way that is not personal. Leave families out of it. And we moderate attacks on National and ACT MPs on the same basis as Labour.
- Don’t tell lies
If you’re commenting for the first time, your comment will go into moderation, and is generally approved. After that your comments should automatically appear.
But if you step outside the guidelines, you’ll be placed “in moderation” which means your comments will sit in a box and be looked at by one of us before being approved.
If you have been banned then you’ll be placed in the banned box. And your comments will not appear on Red Alert during the period you are banned for. After your ban period ends all your comments will continue to be moderated.
In short, we do not tolerate trolling on Red Alert. For those of you who don’t know what trolling is, here’s the wikipedia definition:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Trolling results in editing, deletion of comments, and in the case of gross, or repeat offending, banning. So if you don’t troll, you’re generally okay. We moderate people from across the political spectrum.
“Don’t tell Lies”
How on earth is Trevor going to be able to post with this draconian stipulation.
Fair enough!
It would be nice if my moderation status was reviewed.
I’ve never had a comment removed or even edited, but one day all my comments started going into moderation.
I’ve asked why, but never received a response.
Ok I’ve removed you from moderation. Clare
I have never transgressed the policy. I assume I have been placed in moderation previously for being a frustrated Labour voter who will criticise Labour’s performance, when you get it wrong. Which has been far too often, sadly.
But never mind, my comments really don’t matter. What DOES matter is what Labour MPs say on Red Alert. Get that wrong in the election campaign, and opponents / media will have a field day.
Please, please get an editor with functioning antennae, or at least get MPs to peer edit. There have been too many cases (e.g Damien O’Connor and Raymond Huo, recently) of Labour MPs undermining their own cause with a foolish, unnecessary line. It’s Communication 101: just ask Alasdair Thompson.
Moderate the MPs’ posts first, and you’ll have much less moderation to worry about.
I think I’m still in moderation. Never been told why. It just seems that I was put there after disagreeing with Trevor. Would be nice if my status was reviewed.
I think I’ve taken you out of moderation Curious. It appears you may have been the first person put. Disagreeing with us doesn’t warrant moderation. it’s how you do it. Please remember that. Clare
lol I agree with old sammy. I think sammy and I are in the same boat. Labour voters alienated by the party.
well done Clare .. I have noticed some people have been very rude to those who have a different opinion.
Likewise I would like my status reviewed
I still think a word limit for comments would be good – if you want to write a three volume novel, put it on your own blog!
“Communication 101: just ask Alasdair Thompson.” Bahahahahahaha
@Dorothy – I’m on the fence about that
I would just like to put in a good word for Mr 10:18am. I hope you’ll let him out soon.
Clare you should get rid of anybody who causes trouble here, people who come on to wind up labour people are a waste of time, why give them a forum to put up their propaganda, if they just come here to argue they should be made to go away.
Very true Spud! Phil Goff is doing a wonderful job but too many people come here just to make fun of him!
@Pumpkin, maybe the fact that some people argue a lot is because they come from a different political perspective. i.e. the arguing is a by-product of their political views, not an incessant need of who they are. To ban these people would seem to discourage debate. I don’t see how this can be good for the discourse of this site.
Unless of course you feel that their arguments are unanswerable….
Ha! Not telling lies might seem to be a “draconian stipulation” to the likes of Cameron Slater, but it’s how every argument should be formulated. I guess Slater wouldn’t have much to say if he wasn’t bullshitting all the time.
The difference between National’s failure to have an online forum and Labour having a Website for the public to interact with, is determined by the relevance each party places on public opinion. In this way Labour is proving itself to be far more progressive than National.
Correct Pumpkin. I have noticed that good commenters who used to post regularly have now disappeared. I suspect some at least were so fed up with the continual undermining of the site by the NAct trolls (and their mates) they decided to move on. It’s going to get worse as we approach election day unless the moderators do something about it.
Raymon A Francis Done. Clare
@ Freek Power
I’m sure Pumpkin was not referring to the conservatively minded commenters who, more often than not, engage in genuine debate with the authors and other posters. Indeed they serve a useful purpose because – as you say – they present another perspective. It’s the trolls and those who deliberately set out to misrepresent and undermine the site (and the authors) who are the problem.
Ooops… bad wording. I didn’t mean the authors are a problem. Lol.
Lol Anne.
I feel sorry for jabba
PDM you are banned until 4 August then in moderation for a year unless you are very good. clare
You never owned up to removing a completely polite post of mine.
When I, exasperatedly, objected you told me off for bad behaviour considerably more refined than what occurs in the house.
Hypocrisy is what you (or more likely Spud)project.
Me?
I have nothing against you.
You should have “open thread” posts, where there is no “off-topic” conversation and people can talk about whatever.
While I agree with your moderation policy, I would suggest that an additional check is made on the Internet Addresses being used to comment on the site.
A year or so ago, the Red Alert crew stopped a pair of trolls who were doing a tag team commentary blitz on the site, who were posting from parliamentary addresses. And given their tone, could have been sitting at two computers in the same room high-fiving each other as they went.
We all know that internet forum discussions can get hijacked by paid-for commentators who are attempting to falsify public opinion. Is there a way that such false commentators can be quickly identified and shut out?
This site encourages debate, it is not its role to offer a free platform for opposed interests.
Sean I think that’s a valid point, the problem is the moderators are busy MPs and we don’t have a lot of time or even the skills to check people out. We take people on face value until they prove to have other intent.
Red Alert is run by MPs, paid for by MPs and it is what you see, There are no hidden agendas or shadowy people behind the scenes manipulating things.
A bit like Labour generally really.
So we rely on people like you and others to spot trolls or suspicious behaviour. Sometimes we spot it.
So thanks and hope you’ll keep contributing.
What?????!!!!!!!
Moderation is the naughty place? time out for transgressives and rule breakers?
Tell me it isn’t true! I always thought that I went to moderation because certain words in the post trigger your filters.
Huginn some words do trigger moderation. But you get put there if you are obnoxious but don’t require a ban.
Too bad if you don’t like it
I figure we are fair.
derp de derp (what sort of a name is that??) no we wont be doing open threads. It’s our blog.
“for being a frustrated Labour voter who will criticise Labour’s performance, when you get it wrong.”
I beg to differ. I am in this category. I criticise Labour and its leader and have not been banned. I try to play the ball not the player. I am occasionally frustrated by those who do the opposite.
My posts frequently go to moderation first.
I don’t lose sleep over my posts being in moderation or others reactions to my posts. My self esteem is not tied to how any of you react.
I have enjoyed the opportunity this forum has offered and respect its parameters. It’s not my house, I accept I am a guest.
I have had more answers to direct questions to MP’s faster than ever in my life. In some ways this blog has restored my belief that what individuals think matters. That’s a victory for those representing voters and democracy in my opinion.
I dont expect perfection from an MP or anyone but I expect honesty.
I have to agree with Tracey – I am a Labour supporter etc, and often find myself living in the frustration camp. I have not been banned etc for disagreeing.
I like that we can make our points known – and I like that some of the things we (as in the people) have ardently debated at times on this site, have found their way into policy. (eg: the income level for when the top tax rate sets in – I know that myself and others have advocated that this top rate be appropriate, and there are other examples).
As someone pointed out above – the Nats are too chicken to have their own open forum – and given how many people who speak out about Govt policy get in the proverbial by various ministries (and yes, I do know what I am talking about), then you can see that the Nats would never be open to honest feedback in a public forum.
So, to the Labour camp – well done for this initiative.
ps it would be interesting to see why those who have been active before are not so active now – for me I have been busy, and the issues debated here are not always ones I have that much I want to say about – or the issues I would like to see debated here are not posted about. Perhaps a posting every now and again on the issues some of us want to discuss more would be good – or things we think are topical and worth floating even?
paul, interesting idea, maybe there could be a thread started where we can drop a single word or line topic/policy or whatever we are interested in, and if any contributing Labour MPs are into it, they might start something?
Yep – that would be really interesting I think – and a good way of taking the temp of the public, so to speak, on what issues push their buttons.
thanks spud .. I have NEVER said anything here that warrents moderation other than ask post related questions and challenged what the post were about . I once used the word that starts with W and relates to solo action and that was deleted .. about 2 years ago. My moderation is based on comments elsewhere.
If I have said it once, I have said it a 1000 times. I voted Labour up to and including 2002 (or was was it 2005) and Have voted for Labour more than many other person on this blog.
I get your point Clare, and I will continue to comment, still it would be good to see these professional trolls shut down.
“still it would be good to see these professional trolls shut down”.
debate should be about the opinion expressed NOT who said it??
@ Clare Curran says: July 30, 2011 at 11:51 am
“Huginn some words do trigger moderation. But you get put there if you are obnoxious but don’t require a ban.
Too bad if you don’t like it”
For the record, I have never resented going into moderation because I have always assumed that I had triggered the filters. I have always responded in good faith and because I thought I had something to offer the discussion.
Hearing from you that I was put in moderation to punish me because you thought I was obnoxious but didn’t require a ban comes as a real surprise.
Good policy, appreciate it.
It appears I’ve gone into moderation, despite having commented here before. I’ve never sworn here, but I have attacked Labour Party policy, and criticised Labour for failing to implement specific policy. Doesn’t bother me too much… (being put in moderation, that is) but I do hope that when I have something to say it is being published.
I’ve been in moderation, I don’t take it personally.
@ Huggin
I don’t think Clare worded it very well. It has always been my understanding that most of us go into the ‘naughty corner’ at some time or another because the automatic moderator has been spooked by a word we may have innocently used. The human moderators then fish them out and post them up on the site.
If you have been very naughty then the human moderators will tell you they have placed you in moderation.
Somebody can correct me if I have it wrong.
“Have voted for Labour more than many other person on this blog.”
You suspect you have, am not sure how you could know this for sure unless you knew who we all were personally… you’re not hacking our personal details for a newspaper are you jabba? (joke)
for the record my post at 4.59pm went into automatic moderation, so it’s not a lwnj conspiracy. I suspect its because I used a regular poster’s name
Oh dear tracey, paranoia is rampant. I thought your 5.00pm comment re-poster’s name.. might have been referring to me.
I want to thank the mods for the edit feature. Sooooo good!
tracey .. I’m 55 and have voted in every election since I was old enough. Turned right in 2005