Cleaning up the comment threads

As the grammars school row has worn on there has been a deterioration in the quality of the comments.  I read the 'Cameron back from Crete thread' with growing exasperation yesterday.  Sam and I are not going to tolerate this continuing.  We are going to ban more IP addresses of offending users and we are going to delete more comments.  Our hope for this site is that it represents all shades of opinion within the party and that differences are discussed in a friendly and substantial way - always without personal meanness.  That hasn't been happening recently and good commenters are being driven away.  So here is some guidance...

• As our comments policy states: there will be zero tolerance of homophobia, racism and other forms of hatefulness.
• Bad language, personal nastiness or posts that are overly long, off-subject or simply tedious may be deleted and their authors may be subject to temporary or permanent bans.
• The Editor's decision is final with regard to any and all bans.  We also reserve the right to edit any comments - removing bad language or other objectionable material.
• Whilst people from other parties are welcome to have their say on this site - notably comstock, passing leftie and Henry Mayhew - they will no longer be allowed to dominate threads or routinely propagandise for their parties.  We have been too indulgent in this regard.
• Sam and I spend a lot of time at our laptops but we do take some time off!  If you see an objectionable comment please email us ([email protected] and [email protected]).  This will come through to my Blackberry and can accelerate action against the offence.
• If you see a bad comment please do not give the offender the attention they usually crave.  If another ConservativeHomie has already attacked/ disowned it then please move on and get back to the thread.  Rogue commenters have succeeded when they have disrupted our conversations.

For those not in the know, you can liven up your comments a little by using basic html code:

< i > ITALICISE < / i >

< b > EMOBOLDEN < / b >

< blockquote > INDENT < / blockquote >

< a  h r e f = WORD > LINK < / a >   

Note the space between a and href, all the other spacings have been added so the code is visible. Please remember to close the code because it will affect the site if you don't.

Tomorrow I'm intending to spend the day reviewing ConservativeHome's 44% manifesto.  I am going to use the day to restate my own support for some central components of Project Cameron mission.  I've been guilty of not doing enough of that.

Comments

[Tam Large]

Looks a sensible and well balanced policy to me. I have found some of the personal slanging between poster to be rather puerile and irritating.

[Curly]

Bravo Tim,

for ten minutes I'd thought that Lord Tebbit had assumed 55 pseudonyms for use in his moments of anger and frustration!

[Mark Fulford]

Tim, I'm very glad to read this. The tone of the "Back from Crete" thread made me think twice about associating myself with opinions that certainly don't have the good of the Conservative Party at heart.

I don't think CH should have a management / editorial board, just a bit of self-imposed restraint. Next Grammarsgate, perhaps you can limit yourself to one thread a day and seven threads in total! ;-)

[Chelloveck]

A zero tolerance to personal attacks for all posters would end a lot of the trouble.

When you allow regulars like Oberon to call MP's 'creeps' and other posters 'idiots' without the slightest reprimand then it does open the floodgates for retaliation.

[Gwendolyn]

Well done Ed. It was becoming impossible to have a reasoned debate. In fact I might even post under my real name now you are going to be 'proper' so to speak!

[Joseph]

I found this blog quite by chance. I never made any secret that I was a Labour Party supporter.
Curiosity was the reason I kept reading the posts until one day I decided to contribute myself.
I hope people have always found me reasonable and polite.
For my part I have found in the main, people to be polite and well mannered during the debates I have had with them which I thoroughly enjoyed.
Up to date I have only encountered one thoroughly nasty piece of goods, two smart Alec's and one who ought to have known better.

Tim if you no longer wish for me to contribute to this blog please e-mail me, no offence will be taken.
If anybody else has any objections feel free to express them.

[Far Canal]

"Whilst people from other parties are welcome to have their say on this site - notably comstock, passing leftie and Henry Mayhew"

But how can Henry make his 'welcome' contributions when Sam has banned him from the site?

You two really should talk to one another every now and then.

[Someone else]

Please delete the above comment, it was not sanctioned by Henry. In fact from what I've heard, he just gave the poster a good kicking for doing it.

[Tory T]

Excellent. This will greatly improve the debate and I hope some of the moderates who have left ConHome will feel free to return.

[Downsize the NHS]

I would say most of the rudeness comes from the pro-Cameron side. At the very least it's 50/50.

Just because the so-called moderates threaten to go off in a huff doesn't mean theyre in the right.

I hope the Ed will be evenhanded between the two sides.

[Passing Leftie]

I'm glad I didn't participate in the thread that upset you. My comments on abortion were non-partisan. If there is any specific post which is an example of what you wish to avoid please let me know.

My interest is in a Tory party of the centre ground which provides a credible alternative to New Labour. I'd like to see a low tax small state offering. Cameron appears to offer this.

[Richard Carey]

Please delete the above comment, it was not sanctioned by Henry. In fact from what I've heard, he just gave the poster a good kicking for doing it.

It's a good thing he didn't do it online, then - he'd probably have been barred under the comments policy!

Just because the so-called moderates threaten to go off in a huff doesn't mean theyre in the right.

I don't think anyone's threatened to "go off in a huff", "Downsize". And yes, being politically moderate doesn't mean you can't and won't kick some ass from time to time when you need to. But I am pleased to see the review of the editorial policy, because there have been days recently when I've seen interesting threads opened on here and promised to myself to write for them later when I had time to compose something I hoped to be more thoughtful (well, okay, half-decent then!). Then when I returned to the thread it had degenerated (Godwin's Law, I guess) to such a level that I just sighed and thought "what's the point?"

I hope the Ed will be evenhanded between the two sides.

Those "two sides" being Conservatives and, er, (mostly) Conservatives, I have no doubt that Tim & Sam will be even-handed in the way that they enforce the policy between individuals. That said, we all have a responsibility for this, too - I have from time to time found that the "Preview" button gives a wonderful opportunity to stop and think in the midst of a heated debate whether you really want that post appearing over your name or not!

(As well as a chance to check my dodgy HTML, of course...)

[Mark, Edinburgh]

Sorry if this note is not on the point of the subject, but you don't seem to "do Europe" on this site.

I'm Scottish and as you may know the SNP are committed to "Independence in Europe". Alex Salmond is a patron of the federalist "European Movement". By the way so is Malcolm Rifind.

Europe will be back on the agenda shortly as the federalists try to revive the "constitution".

I think Brown is beginning to realise that the "case for Britain" is increasingly coming under pressure as more and more powers are ceded to Brussels, and so the fragmentation of our country is encouraged.

Surely this is a much bigger issue than grammar schools?

How will the Conservatives play this? You must defend our freedom and independence (or what is left of it) and keep our country together. Otherwise what is the point of your party?

[Comstock]

"Whilst people from other parties are welcome to have their say on this site - notably comstock, passing leftie and Henry Mayhew - they will no longer be allowed to dominate threads or routinely propagandise for their parties."

Could I just stress I'm not a member of the Labour party.

Thanks.

[Adam Tugwell]

Wel said Ed.

This site has the potential to do great things in supporting the Conservative journey back to power, basically because it is being noticed and it is propogating the involvement of ALL parts of the Party.

It is a brilliant thing to be involved in and we should all encourage our Conservative supporting friends to post too.

Let's leave the worrying about our 'people from other parties' to them. It's a pretty good bet that they feel obliged to take part, just to keep a tab on where we all are. Fear is a great thing and they know that when the Tories join up their thinking, they will be in trouble... Let's hope that your actions here will point a good few of us in the right direction.

[Traditional Tory]

I think the most offensive comments are those which seek to hold the editors responsible for the comments of others and accuse them of failing to 'toe the line'

Those who are unhappy with CH are free to set up their own 'loyalist' sites and to police them accordingly.

Let's hope they do. It will be interesting to see how successful they are.

[Simon Denis]

Quite so - there's been too much mutual name calling and not enough reasoned argument. That said, leaving all bad language to one side - and in that term I include your trendy offense of "homophobia" - there should surely be room in debate for the spices of anger, rancour and contempt. These are the expressions of passion and irreconcilable difference. Without them, debate slides into exchange and subtly excludes the very possibility of opposition. All positions are refined towards a consensual centre and change - definite, abrupt, rupturing change - is off the agenda. Can this be good for democracy or the democratic spirit? I think not. In the name of our vigorous, principled, adversarial tradition, I urge you not to be too squeamish or censorious.

[James Maskell]

A fair comment Editor. The blame should be spread around as both pro-Cameron and critics alike are both guilty of sometimes going a bit over the top in their criticisms. Lets all try to keep debate tough but not OTT.

[Don Hoyle]

Having just read the instructions to enliven the post with a bit of code (a supreme effort of understanding for me, but nothing to you chaps [and chapesses]), may I supply this link to a letter in today's Times,

Link

which ought to be given a space on the blog, I feel.

Incidentally, I always 'Preview' my posts. I am constantly amazed at the number of mistakes and typos I pick up from proof-reading the Preview, as opposed to the courier text in the comments box (apart from the mistake of writing and submitting the actual post itself, of course).

[Joseph]

Adam:
"Fear is a great thing and they know that when the Tories join up their thinking, they will be in trouble"

Sorry my friend, the reason I contribute and read these threads is:
I am curious as to why people vote Tory, from what I have read so far I am still none the wiser.
Now as I have never ever regarded any of my Tory friends as foolish or stupid, I will continue to read-post-learn.
From what little knowledge I have gained so far, Mr Cameron seems hell bent on following TB and all of Labours Policies but he thinks he can do it better.
So far I have not seen any clear blue water between one party and the other. I could be missing something, has he any different policies if so where are they?
Perhaps you can enlighten me?

[clive elliot]

I 'fink' this blog would be better and more responsible if people were only allowed to post under their own names, and we ought to be able to know whether posters are Con Party members or not. Is this administratively popssible?

[Chris]

Clive,
The editor covered this subject not too long ago. The site doesn't require the use if real names because it would only serve to stiffle debate. There are people on the candidates list who don't want their posts being brought up at selection meetings, and consequently prefer to remain anonymous. Other posters simply don't want other members of their association to read all of their thoughts.

[passing leftie]

There's no way I can use my real name. I'm out of a job in a couple of weeks time, and this nasty Scottish guy is taking over. I don't want him to know I post here.

[tired and emotional]

I agree with Simon Denis, rancour, spite and the odd bit of contempt all get the blood flowing and the heart pumping. Plus venting spleen on the site helps keep my marriage together as it allows me to disguise quite how right wing I really am from the long-suffering Mrs T&E.

In many way ConHome is a political social worker for hardcore tories.

[Joseph]

There is no way I am putting in my surname. My family think it is only sad individuals with nothing better to do who posts to political blogs.
They only ever pay attention to Politics during the run up to elections, as they are in the majority and I in the minority I am not going to pick an argument with them. It is their choice as it is mine, we all live by the decisions we make.
This is meant in all honesty and sincerity. I am certainly not making either lightor jestof this.
This is a fact of life for me.
I would never live it down, so what they do not know does not hurt them.

[Tory T]

Passing leftie, T&E - lol!

[Joseph]

Sorry that should read light or jest of this (Clumsy fingers and I should have checked before posting)
Joseph.

[Comstock]

Passing leftie's comments certainly made me chuckle.

[passing leftie]

Well, thank you, Comstock and Tory T. Maybe I'll hang on to my job a little bit longer...

[Michael Hewlett]

Chris @ 11.27

Why should associations not know what their candidates are thinking? They represent the activists who select them and if they have certain opinions on hot topics then their local parties should know them.

Maybe you know something I don't as by judging from the various posts on CONHOME I would be seriously worried if many were on the candidate list.

Politics is after all about debate and justifying arguments, if they are chosen as MP's they won't be able to hide their identities then and any extreme views will become known.

Hansard does not log speeches under anon!

[Richard Carey]

Why should associations not know what their candidates are thinking? They represent the activists who select them and if they have certain opinions on hot topics then their local parties should know them.

Michael, I've struggled with this one, too, and I can understand there might be reasons why some people might not want to be so open with their identity. I'm not sure that anything would be achieved by compelling them to reveal it, except a lot of administration.

I would agree with you, though, that it would not be desirable if we had selected candidates who had insuficient confidence in their views that they felt the need to hide them behind pseudonyms instead of making them public. I think that highly unlikely to be the case, as I can think of a number of parliamentary candidates who have posted here lately.

On the other hand, I do think that whether you would be happy to see something posted over your own full name or not is a good self-imposed test. Likewise, I think we are all capable of factoring in ourselves the openness or otherwise of the poster when controversial or strongly-worded opinions are being expressed.

Joseph: There is no way I am putting in my surname. My family think it is only sad individuals with nothing better to do who posts to political blogs.

That's your personal choice, but it made me chuckle! I needed a good laugh today, even if it was slightly at my own expense. If I ever meet your family, heaven help them!! On the other hand, I am sitting here of an evening debating online the comment moderation policy of a blog that, er... well, we all need a hobby, don't we?...

[tired and emotional]

People have a right to express their opinions without fear of reprisal, in my experience debate with those who disagree with you sharpens one's arguments but also moderates them. Real extremism comes when your arguments are not only undebated, but unacknowledged.. then the frustration and anger becomes so intense as to block out perspective and rational thought.

Expecting people to have a totally open discussion about difficult issues in today's PC world and thereby commit career suicide is a great way to stop debate of difficult issues and thereby retard mutual understanding of positions.

Why is it we must be denied not only the right to speak our minds in public without prosecution, isolation, ridicule or ruin but also have any measure of anonymous (and therefore freer) discourse removed? Does the concept of a safety valve ring any bells?

[Traditional Tory]

From what little knowledge I have gained so far, Mr Cameron seems hell bent on following TB and all of Labours Policies but he thinks he can do it better.

Joseph has got the problem in one.

And why should this approach appeal to anybody with sincere and long-held principles?

[Chris]

Michael,
I'm not saying I agree with the stance, but it's the one which has been cited by Tim before. I don't use my surname on here (Although some people in my local association know I post here under this name) because I wouldn't want a prospective employer to read my political views after googling my name.

[malcolm]

Personally I take more notice of those who blog under their real names than those who like to hide behind a cloak of anonanymity.
Most of the extreme elements who post on this blog are too frightened it seems to reveal their true selves and also some of the more moderate commentators too. I can understand those who would rather their employers did not know there political views but it is irritating that a number of Conservative party insiders who let's face it are hardly likely to be fired for contributing to a Conservative blog do not have the courage to post their views openly.

[Michael Hewlett]

Chris @ 21.18

Not revealing your real name for your mentioned reasons ie: for your day job is a valid reason. I still hold the view that for prospective candidates and ppc's it is essential.

I hadn't considered the employer angle previously...

[Modern Conservative]

Re the employer angle it's worth mentioning that HR departments do google people, that google is very powerful and if you know what you're doing it's fairly easy to find somones online imprint.

What's more the Internet is forever. High profile sites like Conservative Home will be regularly cached and archived.

Beyond that I don't post under my own name because I don't work in politics but I might want to one day.