Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

In addition to a 5 post rule could we have a daily limit (for posts not articles) of, say, 5,000 words?  Not mentioning any names, mind.

Fiona: Absolutely no flattery intended, but given your glorious propensity for succinctness, Malcolm, you just might be on the money. For my money, anyway.

Well it is easy to see what value posters put on their comments. With around a thousand comments published for a miserable hundred and twenty dollars donated last month, it would seem those commenting, if they had to pay our overworked and long suffering editors, would reckon about a cent a comment is their due.  And all this fuss about workchoices, fair pay, fair conditions and all that!   Hypocrisy lives.

If we want to make it to Christmas folks, we have to do a bit better than that.  So out with the old bank card. Put it on the never never if you have to, otherwise you may be kicked off your soap boxes for ever.

Not the 22nd in the Enid Blyton series, but a generic response to questions raised over the last few weeks about a couple of aspects of Editorial Policy: the 5-per-day comment limit, and the restriction on some conspiracy debates.

Taking the latter first, and reminding ourselves of the rules as set out by MK not long after the advent of the reader comment system:

Webdiary will not publish comments or host discussion on the following matters:

1. Denial of the existence of the holocaust.
2. Allegations that a Western power or powers were behind the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001
3. "False flag" theories.

Why these three? It isn't just because of the content, but also because experience of these debates tells us that in fact no debate is possible: the two (or more) sides endlessly repeat the same arguments to which the other side isn't listening. There are plenty of sites around devoted to these subjects where the interminable repetition is welcome: go debate them there. When you're there, remember that the complete lack of any evidence just shows how well the conspiracy is working. Obviously it can be difficult to draw the line, particularly when debating 9/11, and that can lead to some inconsistencies between editors, but that's life.

On the 5-post rule, it's worth looking back to what Margo wrote when first introducing the rule:

I suggested a 5 per day limit for two reasons - to help control the ever increasing number of comments, and to prevent a few people dominating threads to such an extent that other people might feel loathe to join the conversations. I didn't mean it to be an inflexible rule.
 
The rule was originally put in these terms:
 
"1. Except in exceptional circumstances at the discretion of Margo Kingston and the editors, Webdiarists are limited to a maximum of 5 posts per 24 hours."

Exceptional circumstances was first defined by Margo in terms of input from a subject expert on a hot topic, but might also include not counting some comments on non-contentious side subjects. However, having looked back on the very small number of comments that have been caught by the rule in the last couple of months, none really added anything that hadn't been said already in previous comments - indeed, some of them might have been rejected anyway on the grounds of abuse: it seems that some of you tend to get more heated as the day goes on, and subside overnight ... I had been going to write "you know who you are ...", but actually I suspect some of you don't have that reflective clarity ...

I've listened to all the views put to me, and we've debated the issues around the editors, and neither rule is going to be changed. 

Is there still a limit on the number of posts which a poster can make per day (I believe that it used to be 5)?? If not, may I request that this be re-introduced?? I ask as every time I come here, it seems that the Gang of Three (Parsons, White, Pahoff) seem to have managed to spam the entire board with their facile and frequently inane puff-adder Manicheaism.... 

(One of these lads really ought to find a job....) 

David R: we re-introduced the 5-per-day limit a few months ago (see Comment Moderation. Editors have discretion to allow beyond the 5 for comments that are particularly interesting or add new information: they haven't felt the need to exercise that discretion for anything lately.

OK, F Kendall, and for all other interested readers:

On a very quick examination of posting behaviour over the last four days (two of which are weekend days, when numbers are always lower), there have been 32 distinct individual posters.  Moreover, on 4 and 5 October (Thursday and Friday) there have been in excess of 50 posts each day, while on 6 October (Saturday) there were just over 40 posts – in my recollection a high number for a weekend.

I have no idea what the comparative traffic is like on other websites. All I know is - especially because I've been moderating for a fair proportion of that time – Webdiary has been exceedingly active in the last few days.

So, if you are interested in participating in the discourse, in the contest of ideas – get those fingers moving. We moderators can't actually make you do it - it is entirely a matter for you.

Btw:  What on earth is the al-khayma site, that you advertise, on about?

David R: Ads in the right-hand panel are supplied by Google, and change with every new page loaded. We have no more knowledge of what they're about than you do, in general.

With around 13000 website visitors, how come there are the same 20?or so posters over and over and over and over....(and, each l with very predictable points of view)...Is there no way to encourage these visitors to post, or don't you want them to?

For such as me, it's like being an eavesdropper/interloper on the fringe of a gang of buddies.

Fiona: F Kendall, first of all, great to see you here again. As for your comment regarding numbers,I don't think it is quite as bad as that - but one way that you can help is by contributing.  Offhand I can't think of anything that will actually make people contribute, other than the hopefully continued existence of robust debate on the site.

Strange, Dr Sir Jihad Woodforde, that you should mention Mme Grenfell - I know a cousin of hers fairly well.

Yet I doubt, good Sir Doctor, if I have either the teeth or the voice. With her teeth, of course, one could go on a spree sinking at least a thousand ships. Attila the Hen would have been proud. Not to mention those poor boys on the Belgrano.

Welcome back Dr Reynolds.

We once had a Richard Head try to join the Army.   We invented a new category of rejection to go with reject med [medical] RI [reject intelligence] RP [reject personality] RE [reject literacy] - reject name.   Just couldn't have had the lad in I'm afraid - too cruel - even crueler than his parents.

Perhaps webdiary needs its own: reject paranoia.   Oh, and don't email me again Geoff. 

The other 10 were almost all because they were personally abusive of other Webdiarists - as you know full well. So, you are hereby anointed the most foul-mouthed person on Webdiary - enjoy the accolade for what it's worth.

Actually David it is not me providing a sanctuary for racists and bigots like Roslyn Ross and Phil Kendall. A place of their own where they know they can come and spew their poisonous foul-mouthed abusive bile, safe in the knowledge that they will be protected from criticism and parody. That particular accolade is entirely yours.

As for being the most censored person on Webdiary? Even though I have not once breached WD's guidelines? I will shout that achievement from the tree tops. I am going to announce it all over the blogosphere. That is something that I am sincerely proud of.

David: well, strangely enough, Geoff, calling other Webdiarists "dickhead" IS a breach of WD guidelines. So, this "achievement" is a testament to you not being able to tell a fact from an opinion.

We didn’t publish 21 abusive, content-free or incomprehensible comments ...

Geez. By my quick calculation I reckon at least half of these must have been mine.

Surely this must be a new personal and all time WD record?  Come on guys. Some credit where credit is due please.

Fiona: Geoff, you must try harder (always wanted to put that on someone's report). I've just done a quick analysis and no, nowhere near half. Better luck this month? Cheers.

David: actually it was 11 of the 21 (though one of those doesn't really count, as it wasn't published because it was a reply to a post of Roslyn's that snuck in before Roslyn's was un-published after an upheld complaint that it was in breach of WD guidelines). Only Angela Ryan otherwise managed more than one. The other 10 were almost all because they were personally abusive of other Webdiarists - as you know full well. So, you are hereby anointed the most foul-mouthed person on Webdiary - enjoy the accolade for what it's worth.