Over 80% of all new commentators on this blog of late have turned out to be trolls. They offer comments that are intended to be disruptive, abusive, or both, from behind a veil of secrecy, wasting my time and that of other readers in the process. Even those who try to look reasonable at first are within three comments falling back on ad hominem attacks.
I have always reserved the right to refuse and edit comments received here. I don't use that option as much as I might. But I am getting bored by the trolling. So I will now be adopting a new policy. If I have any reason to doubt the credibility of a commentator when they first post their comment, or within a few thereafter, it will be deleted and will be replaced by this message from me to them, posted on the site:
Thank you for commenting. You have not done so before, or have only done so a few times, and the tone of your comment suggests that you might be trolling. As such please now email me providing evidence that you might be the person you claim to be with evidence of a persistent pattern of posting on other social media such as Facebook or Twitter using the name that you have now used to comment here so that I might decide whether I wish to let you comment on this site. My decision on whether to then accept comments from you will be final. The more information you provide the easier it will be for me to make a positive decision. Any disclosure you make will be voluntary. You do not need to respond if you do not wish to post again.
This will not affect those who are already established commentators or those who I think are genuine in their disagreement.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
At the risk of sounding paranoid, do you think that there is any sort of coordination behind this Richard?
Maybe
Maybe its got something to do with the usual suspect, the nitwit that promotes speculation scams and occasionally got a column in Forbes. I can’t even remember his name.
I rather strongly suspect you are right
Thank you for commenting. You have not done so before, or have only done so a few times, and the tone of your comment suggests that you might be trolling. As such please now email me providing evidence that you might be the person you claim to be with evidence of a persistent pattern of posting on other social media such as Facebook or Twitter using the name that you have now used to comment here so that I might decide whether I wish to let you comment on this site. My decision on whether to then accept comments from you will be final. The more information you provide the easier it will be for me to make a positive decision. Any disclosure you make will be voluntary. You do not need to respond if you do not wish to post again.
Ha ha, well done Richard! Funny how the trolls can’t even be bothered to use upper case letters in their ‘names’?
It’s either a bot or a few sad individuals who still support Johnson and his neo-fascist government.
What I’ve noticed is that in the majority of cases the person concerned never interacts with any others who comment on the blog itself or respond to the post of that person. They only respond to you, Richard.
That does suggest to me that they are not interested in a debate – just trouble makers and keyboard warriors.
Craig
Ha ha, nice one Richard – I’ve been astonished by your patience, perhaps something to do with your spiritual practice, but in any case quite inspiring.
Tnak you again to you and all you (non troll) contributors.
To update Oscar Wilde….
“Trolling is the sincerest sort of flattery”
Increased trolling indicates increased profile/importance…. but you are right to not let it swamp you or the site.
Hoorah!
I enjoy reading your blog every morning together with the views of many knowledgeable commentators. It keeps me informed and current. Please keep it up, ideally minus the distraction of trolls.
Thanks Tony
Seconded – I don’t often comment, but do enjoy trying to educate myself via the posts and informative comments
I agree with Tony_B and mg.
Your blog and informed, respectful contributors help keep me sane(r) than I would be without you.
Trolls are the curse of the internet; thank you for taking a hard line with them. Especially on a site like this.
Those of us who are not knowledgeable about tax and finance—like me—but who come here to learn from you and from the ongoing comments and debate that follows each blog, can get confused by trollish comments and accusations. A viewpoint that has no fiscal merit can seem plausible to those of us who aren’t already in the know. Until the troll is called out….
I want to believe that what I read here is true, or at least has merit. So more power to your cyber-arm, Richard!
Thanks
I find that the comments made by these contributors often serve a purpose contrary to their intentions. Whenever a simple (to a certain value of ‘simple’, of course) economic point is made, i.e. that QE doesn’t need to be reversed, they come out of the woodwork and start being generally abusive and unpleasant.
BUT! Amongst that unpleasantness, they often give their world view and ask questions. Their view is almost always and in every way contrary to Richards, and the questions they ask often appear to be basic to the point of being silly… and I can see a value in both of these things.
Firstly, echo chambers are dangerous things. Discourse and debate are vital when discussing matters of fundamental economic and financial importance – the value of this blog would be diminished if every response to a blog was “Hear Hear, well said Richard”. Dissent from claims made by the blog can keep everyone on their mental toes, so to speak. Echo chambers can reinforce errors as well as cement the truth. So I would be sad to see the back of challenge. When done respectfully and with the intention of expanding understanding (and I accept that this step is being taken due to the all too common absence of those caveats) it can enhance and enrich the whole learning experience provided by this blog.
Secondly, I don’t believe in stupid questions. Some may by really (and I mean REALLY) basic, but those are easy to deal with. Others betray a fatal misunderstanding of the subject. Others give the opportunity to flesh out an explanation, often resulting in a finessing of the language used which makes the proposition more accessible to all. I’ve never been afraid to ask what others would call a stupid question and it’s served me well.
I fully get that you’re sick to the back teeth of people posting here with a view to discredit the man because they can’t discredit his views or facts… I would be too. My eyes roll in my head every time I see some keyboard warrior attempt to lure you into an oh-so-clever trap by asking you about your own tax affairs or funding (which is a subject of supreme disinterest to anyone but Richard, or should be) so I can only imagine what happens to your blood pressure these days. But for what it’s worth, for reasons I give above, I think these bold Shreks can sometimes actually provide a service to the blog.
Anyhoo, That’s my bit for the day!
But you don’t have to moderate or address this stuff
And I promise you it’s wearing, which is exactly why they do it. Their aim is to grind people out of opposition by wearing them down
So protective measures need to be taken
“As such please now email me providing evidence that you might be the person you claim to be” – that’s a good idea.
Seems a fair and sensible approach. ‘Protecting’ the rest of us from the trolls makes this a much more pleasant and useful place. Is there a pattern to the trolls? Im aware that you get shot at from both/all sides.
There is a pattern
Main,y, supposedly, women now
Often absurd email addresses
And the more subtle ones start with something obsequious to get on first time