A new trend appears to be developing amongst those who wish to troll on this site.
In the last week, I have had to block a couple of people who had posted at least 50 comments before it became apparent that they were really here to present unacceptable views. At least one other commentator is currently being reviewed for the same reason.
One of these people did, after being blocked under their pseudonym, then try to post under their own name, quite offensively. This is very tedious. It could also be time-wasting, which I am sure is these people's aim, which is why I block them rather than engage in most cases.
So, can I make it unambiguously clear that no comment is posted on this blog without me having seen it?
That said, I recognise that I do sometimes make mistakes when moderating. Comments that I should have deleted, including from long-term commentators, sometimes slip through. If you were faced with moderating 40 or 50 comments, as I sometimes am in a batch, then you, too, would sometimes make mistakes. Those mistakes do not, however, create precedents. I will always go back and delete comments if anyone points out my mistakes, so feel free to do so.
I also need to make clear, again, most particularly for those who want to abuse the rules, that I have always written this blog to explore ideas. Over time, others have made significant contributions through their comments. I appreciate the efforts of those who do so in good faith. But not everybody seeks to do that. That is why, as a result, more than 1,000 people have been blocked over the last 19 years that I have been blogging, which at the rate of approximately one a week, is not that excessive, but is nonetheless tedious.
I will continue to block people when I think it's appropriate, with just one comment usually being sufficient for me to decide on that course of action, which is generally irreversible. I do not have the time to spend agonising over the hurt feelings of those who, by and large, post under a pseudonym using an email address that gives no clue as to their identity.
Let me make it clear that the right to comment on this blog is granted as a favour, and not as a right. Saying so does not represent censorship. It represents the essential freedom of an editor to decide what they will and will not accept for publication. That right is fundamental to the advancement of free speech.
In summary, if you are here to waste my time, it will not take me that long, in the end, to rumble you, and to then ban you. Writing a whole pile of apparently acceptable posts before beginning to unleash your unacceptable views, before being banned, does seem like the most immense waste of time. Might I suggest you do something better with your life?
I blog because I like writing to explore ideas. That is my primary goal. I, as a consequence, spend two or more hours moderating a day. But I have no time to waste on those who want to abuse that time. Please understand that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“I have always written this blog to explore ideas. Over time, others have made significant contributions through their comments.”
& that is the heart of the matter. Civilised discourse/discussion in very troubled times.
Maybe there should be a blog for the villiage idiots……oh hang on there is X or Facebook or……
A very reasonable reminder and noted.
I only post on three blogs, and always under my birth name. I have often wondered why others do not do likewise?
A few because work makes it impossible. I get that. Some women do not want to. But initials are fine. So I am not sure why, otherwise.
My explation:
I do not want people who I really do not know that coming up to me publically and engaging me in discussion on what I post.
I am “BayTampaBay” on all blog sites and comment sections of articles…even The Fail….that I submit on.
FYI: This blog has many readers from Florida as well as viewers of Richard’s YouTube channel. I learned at a patio party that a person I have known for years views “Looking for the New Normal” daily. Of course I told him I am BayTampaBay and suggested he check out the blog “Funding the Future”. However, I do not want to get into a discussion with any MAGAt nutcase co-workers.
Fair enough!
And I do know who you are
And there were over 1 million US YouTube views over the weekend…
“I do not want people who I really do not know that coming up to me”
Should be: I do not want people who I really do not know that well coming up to me
I think there are two separate factors. One is that some people’s professional or domestic circumstances constrain their freedom to speak out. The other is that, before Facebook, the first fifteen years or so of the internet established a firm tradition of pseudonymous interactions on forums that has not died out, and it used to be a sign of stubborn eccentricity to proudly put your given name to your posts. I did, but that is how I am.
Thanks David
If people genuinely disagreed with you, they could articulate it in an argument. If you are attracting Trolls, you are saying something certain people don’t want to hear. Some Trolls are paid, or part of an organisation opposed to your views in some way, others, the ones I don’t understand, just do it to pass the time. Block away.
Thanks
You are doing us all a favour by moderating in the way you do. I have abandoned a number of online forums precisely because the comments were inadequately controlled. Thank you for keeping this a sane and productive site.
Thanks
Well said, and appreciated. Speaking as a long running reader and commentor (I think Pilgrim Slight Return – who used to used to use PSR rather than the longer name – and I are some of the longest running contributors), I’ve never stopped appreciating how much effort you put into this blog, and how much I’ve learnt – not just from your posts, but also the many, many contributors who draw on their own knowledge and experience when commenting on the posts that “start the ball rolling” on so many topics.
As you know, my main interest is on the policy side of politics/political economy: the “who gets what, when, how and why”, as I’ve noted previously, and that where this blog scores in spades. Too many people – online and in real life – simply sound off and complain. And that gets us nowhere – as I know from experience of working on the “political” side of local government and the voluntary sector.
Trump is the absolute ultimate example of this. Moan, moan, moan, whinge, whinge, whinge, but never a thought through solution ever spews from his orange cake hole. Or, if half of one does, it’s simply based on his own prejudice, hatred, or ignorance, or those of others of similar intellect and intent, that he collects around him like so many blinded moths around a bright light.
Sadly, Starmer and most contemporary politicians have forgotten (or never knew) what we used to consider a politician to be. Now it’s just a means to a lucrative, commercial end. Consequently, speaking truth to power isn’t something one does – or certainly not in public. But on this blog that’s what we get, day in, day out. And for that I, for one, am mightily thankful.
Thanks Ivan
I am sure that some people troll because they are envious of those (you) who are more accomplished than themselves. Envy, (from the word ‘invidia’ meaning non sight) is one of the deadly sins. Tom B above writes regarding being articulate in an argument, and these Trolls possibly lack that articulation, lack that thought process, and thus feel fragile as their own intellect is limited. By using scorn, by abusing your rules, the Troll tries to inflate his/her own ego and to incite others, and to coverup the fact that he/she is not equal to exploring the ideas which you put forward – the Troll suffers from ‘non sight’, unable to join in with meaningful discussion re the subjects and ideas you introduce, being blinded by his/her own ego.
Thanks
As long as Ive been following the blog, Ive had that sense that you are doing us all a huge service by filtering out the kind of comments that add nothing to the debate and are just pure trolling. And that it must test your tolerance to an extreme. Periods of grumpiness are fully understood!
Me grumpy?
Yes, sometimes. This afternoon due to IT issues, though.
I post under a pseudonym with associated email address, simply because the world is becoming a more dangerous place, as admirably revealed in some of Richard’s recent posts.
One cannot be sure what grimness the future holds, so a degree of online anonymity may be the wise choice going forward.
Am happy to reveal my (very dull!) identity to Richard, if he so requires it.
This is one of the very few sites I visit where the comments following the main article are always worth reading all the way to the end. So much extra information comes from knowledgeable people who follow your blog.
You do an excellent job filtering out the troublemakers, in my opinion. But it must be tiresome for you. Sorry it happens, but I guess that’s online behaviour these days.
I was a moderator on a writers’ forum a while back, so I know what a huge daily task it is to spot, and then get rid of trolls. Can be soul-destroying …but I suppose that’s why they do it.
Yout last comment is so true.
Thanks for your comment.
You admit to making mistakes in moderation by not blocking people you believe you should have, so it’s possible you have also made mistakes in the other direction, incorrectly blocking people for being trolls when they were actually politely making good faith arguments that disagree with your views. You treat many such people in exactly the same way as you do those who make rude and substance-free arguments. Disagreeing with you has now become a lottery, no matter how polite and well-reasoned the comment may be. I used to write occasional comments but now rarely do because I do not know if you will take it as a good-faith comment or not.
I sometimes find opposing views in the comments to enhance the blog, because they can cause you to write a rebuttal that brings in a lot more information and reasoning that isn’t in the original post and so gives greater detail and clarity to the point you are making, often on a very technical level, so I find it unfortunate that sometimes I read through a polite and interesting opposing view in the comments and wonder how you will respond, only to find you telling the person they are a troll. It’s also unedifying how sometimes some of the regular commenters will aggressively gang up on a person who has left a comment that you do not like.
Years ago you refused to personally insult any politician, insisting only on criticising policy, but that has now changed with how you talk about some of those in power. I still love this blog for how informative it is but I find it sad that it has become a lot angrier than it used to be. You talk about the need for more caring, about how moving your Celtic Prayer book is and how it helps you to find peace, and how your Quakerism helps you to be more compassionate and see the good in others – I would like to see more of all of that in the blog.
Regardless of how you take this comment, if you publish it or not, if you see it as a trolling comment or not, I will continue to read your blog and be grateful for all of the good that you do.
George Fox was a very angry man in the face of injustice.
So were many early Quakers.
And have you read the Gospels?
Anger has a rightful place in the face of deliberate abuse.
I know I’ve posted comments where sometimes you’ve agreed and sometimes quite vocally disagreed, but they’re published anyway. It should be clear to most that there’s at least a fairly reasonable bar for someone to get blocked from such inclusion of disagreeing opinions.
Agreed