29th October 2022
Yesterday’s post went up late and it was on a contentious issue, where the views I expressed were probably not shared by many of those who follow this blog.
But still, at the time of writing, there were 141 comments – some of a high quality, and many were balanced on the PR issue.
Only one comment was not published by reason of irksomeness.
*
Of course, comments moderation makes a difference.
Comments moderation is time-consuming, but I think it is worthwhile as it ensures a good standard of published comments.
I see my role as a letters’ editor of an old-style newspaper, where there was pride in what letters were published.
And so it is not like the anything-goes antics of “below the line” on other media sites.
I think it is a false economy for such sites not to pre-moderate their comments, as it means fewer (if any) sensible people will spend much time looking at the comments.
As for “free speech” (or “freeze peach”), nothing in my moderation policy is stopping a person from publishing a view elsewhere.
But curating the comments on this site is itself an exercise of free speech.
I especially welcome – and treasure – comments that show how my posts are wrong in detail or in principle or in reasoning, but without abuse and name-calling.
This is because the subject matter of this blog – law and policy and how the two connect – is the thing, and there really is no merit in saying things which are incorrect.
And so as Twitter becomes more of a Hellsite – and I spend far less time on there than I used to, and my main account there is now permanently locked – I would like readers and commenters to know that they are welcome here.
For it is possible to have polite discussions on the internet on contentious issues between strangers.
Thank you.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
The comments policy is here.
I have just sampled some of the other 140 comments yesterday (my own takes the total to 141).
They are an internet delight. Informed, informative, thoughtful, courteous and thought provoking. What more could one want?
Indeed, DAG deserves plaudits for promoting such a successful exercise in enabling a more deliberative democracy
Well said and much needed . . . I happen to think that PR would be a better system, but do not have enough expertise to argue about it.
Saying PR is better is like saying it is better to cross the Atlantic by sea than to fly. Crossing by sea includes a wide variety of alternatives – a large cruise ship, a freight vessel, a canoe, or swimming. You may be thinking of the luxurious cruise with fine dining, cinema, and on-board swimming pool, but if you just demand to go by sea you might find yourself in a rowing boat with a few months’ supplies.
Well said and good analogy DAG with the letters editor. You can disagree but at least be positive or elegant about it. I was thrilled back in 2006 to have my first letter published by the FT disagreeing with a piece by the sainted Lucy Kellaway. Obviously, I bought a couple of copies, (no online in those days), bragged to everyone I knew and had one framed which still graces a place in the downstairs loo. The content is still relevant today…
Agree with no moderation being a false economy-if a participatory discussion is sought. It also keeps the spam at bay, so thank you for that.
As an aside, I found it striking that the vast majority of comments to that post were apparently submitted by males. Not sure what if anything can be inferred from that but thought it worth mentioning.
(I shan’t feel offended if you think this too off-topic or inadvertently provocative to post.)
Good point ttu
It is pertinent that proportional representation should not exclusively effect fairness in political party allegiance. STV allows greater voter choice in term of proportional representation of different identities irrespective of political tribe. It was Enid Lakeman, who first convinced me of the benefit of this aspect of STV. The ERS runs an award in her name.
I think that the quality of comments becomes a self-reinforcing thing. As you say, it adds to (already high) quality of the posts, which probably encourages further insightful commentary. Who wants their valuable contribution to be drowned in a sea of guff?
Also pleasing to read that so few need to be rejected. Don’t know if this applies to others, but I know that I probably take more care over comments here than elsewhere. This is at least in part because I am aware that they will be viewed alongside a lot of excellent thoughts, and though I don’t use my full name, I don’t want to ‘let myself down’.
Admirable.
The art of disagreeing agreeably (with apologies to Campbell/Stewart @RestIsPolitics) is indeed precious, though I come here mainly for enlightenment.
I too “especially welcome” the lack of “abuse and name-calling,” not to mention the clear analyses and erudition of yours and post-ers. I learn a lot but, like Anne Barlow, don’t have the expertise to comment extensively.
Thank YOU 😊
My guess is that people read all the comments (or at least try to) because they are interested – and maybe it sparks a thought in their had.
It’s not quite a conversation, but something close to it.
They are interested in the ideas rather than looking for an excuse to spout out their usual claptrap (your readers not doing claptrap, of course).
I suspect we should be as grateful for your moderation as your posts – you keep us away from the dross (or vice versa).
Many thanks.
I find unmoderated discussion on the internet is summed up beautifully in this comic strip:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07
such a good word, irksome
Your comment on polite discussions among strangers is well made.
I will continue with twitter which I find very informative.
Musk may try to change it but as long as the good guys and gals continue to post on it unfettered it can only be beneficial.
Just tune out the unpleasantness.
Well thank you for all the work you do. I have sampled some of the comments before, but will pay them more attention in future!
Twitter is flypaper for trolls. Maybe they have forgotten about blogs. So old now, like parchment. But the moderation must help, as deterrent as much as filter. This is your online home. If we aren’t respectful, show us the door!
It will always be forever thus. While a number of us depend on you breaking these complex matters into single syllables others are just happy to give the experts a kicking.
Moderation is very valuable. When I comment I always ask myself if DAG might find my thoughts irksome and hope he does not. It is a useful discipline. That it apparently also real gives it authority way beyond the algorithmic.
I’m an American who has followed UK politics closely since the Brexit vote. I read each of your posts with interest, even those that explore arcane nooks and crannies of your system of governance. Your politics–how you get things done–has always mystified me, but your posts have helped clarify the process. So thank you for that, and I dearly hope you all can arrest your slow slide.
“ĺ read each of your posts with interest, even those that explore arcane nooks and crannies of your system of governance.”
Even those? In my case it’s especially those.
I’ve always had a good general level of understanding anout our system (enough to be able to hold a reasonable conversation) but DAG’s accessible explanations of some of the intricacies – both what they are and what they mean – takes my understanding to a whole new level.
Whether my thoughts are irksome or not (and I rarely self filter), the knowledge that at least one person has taken a moment to think about my witterings is satisfying.
I find no such incentive on general social media.
👍
I get the sense that most of the commentators feel there is a need to change/reform the current electoral system but there is concern over what the new system might look like and how to achieve it.
Could Citizens’ Assemblies be a starting point?
Seconded as my post suggested!
I closed my own Twitter account when Musk’s purchase was first mooted. I then wondered if this was premature, but I was already finding it a toxic place.
My main use of Twitter was following a few interesting celebs, but mostly law and politics bloggers. My more social activity has always been on Facebook.
Anyway, I now follow most of the same people, including yourself, via the author’s own websites. I do this using a useful RSS aggregator called Feedly, which makes following multiple sources very easy. The feed, which can be read in an app or on the Feedly website, offers subscribed articles either in a Feedly format or direct link to the website. You need to use the latter for direct interaction, such as commenting, but the Feedly format is convenient for browsing.
Of course,bother RSS browsers exist, and it is worth trying a few, until you find one that works for you. But it does make it easy to follow stuff.
I closed my own Twitter account when Musk’s purchase was first mooted. I then wondered if this was premature, but I was already finding it a toxic place.
My main use of Twitter was following a few interesting celebs, but mostly law and politics bloggers. My more social activity has always been on Facebook.
Anyway, I now follow most of the same people, including yourself, via the author’s own websites. I do this using a useful RSS aggregator called Feedly, which makes following multiple sources very easy. The feed, which can be read in an app or on the Feedly website, offers subscribed articles either in a Feedly format or direct link to the website. You need to use the latter for direct interaction, such as commenting, but the Feedly format is convenient for browsing.
Of course, other RSS browsers exist, and it is worth trying a few, until you find one that works for you. But it does make it easy to follow stuff.
This is a place for civilised discussion between intelligent and engaged people. You don’t tell us what overall proportion of comments you dismiss as irksome, but it feels to me that your moderation is an important part of keeping the discussion civilised.
I suspect that the quality of comments, and their politeness, is largely a response to the content of the blog. Thoughtful, reasoned, liberal (with a small l). People who are obsessed with justifying their own opinions are probably elsewhere.
Thank you for your continuing efforts to uphold the voices of reason!
You must have two readers with the same name! I certainly did not post this yesterday.
As one reader who reads the comments as avidly as the ABL piece, if you’re ambition was to create a ‘letters to the editor’ blog: job done mate.
To state the bleedin’ obvious: this works because of you. The lucid original post, the pre moderation, never invites the hate festival goers to the party. After all, there are plenty of other noisy parties if that is your thing.
This all reminds me of an pleasant conversation with friends. There may be a place for blood and thunder, but I am grateful for this space at the bottom of the garden with the quiet voices and bright eyes.
(Not really for publication, but I wanted you to know how delightful to me these pages of thoughts are).
For me this is good because I’ve now found myself understanding a lot more of what is being said and the comments further my understanding of the current topic etc.
Thanks.
Nicely put. Agree 100%. Your stance does make the commets more worthwhile to read and ponder over.