Guys – we need to keep the comments as clean as possible and there is an increasing amount of vulgarity creeping in. So, please respect the blog and watch your language. If I don’t see an improvement I will take firm action. It only gives our enemies ammunition. I can set up the comment thread to select certain words but would rather you just edited what is posted.
CIVILITY ON B-BBC
Bookmark the permalink.
I’ve tried to keep it clean, David. I’m a good boy. 😉
Have you seen this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8285370.stm
Lovely positive propaganda about the “Huts for sluts” initiative.
The kid in the pic has great eyebrows already.
You are awfully heavy handed with the banning DV. Jimmy gone on atw, Scott M, who was one of the few posters posting with his full identity on show, who stood over what he said, who wasn’t rude or used vile language, or posted views like the one above and you got rid of him?
Why? A different opinion isn’t trolling.
Anymoe banning and there’ll be nobody left to ban.
Well you could start by getting rid of Martin, whose foul-mouthed, anally and faecally-obsessive postings have brought ridicule to this website.
http://opinionbeyondeducation.blogspot.com/2009/09/u-bend-if-you-want-to.html
sock puppet
Wha’t up Troll? Try making sensible comments instead of posting under differnt names.
These trolls have nothing to contribute to the discussion. They just don’t understand how the Beeboids are on the verge of brainwashing the entire population. Scum!
Moby, is that you?
Vulgarity is the only thing that gets me out of my bed these days. That and my manservant, Juma. Maybe some guidelines would be helpful so we know where the boundaries, so to speak, lie.
When you play by your opponents’ rules, you already have lost. This seems doubly-true from the comments on this post: sniping at each other, plain disagreement with your request.
The BBC is a duplicitous and unaccountable black hole for public money. It acts as a propaganda arm of Government. There is a lot to fight against, but this attempt you have here is just crap.
I’ve not posted for a while purely because of the nut-jobs this site seems to attract. I’m not sure if Martin (as mentioned above) genuinely believes all beeboids use drugs and rentboys (I suspect it’s tongue in cheek) but comments like that don’t exactly lend credibility to the site. Of course, when you take out the one-off lines like “kill the Beeb” and “the BBC are a disgrace”, the vast, VAST majority of posts here are reasonable and often have a good point.
Personally, I don’t mind paying for the Beeb, but have been very disappointed about CERTAIN aspects of their output. Israel, Islam, Labour, to name but three, yet shows like Life on Mars and the Office would probably never have been made by a commercial organisation, the iPlayer technology used by ITV, C4, and Sky would be years away, and the new straight-to-TV iPlayer box (I forget what it’s call) would be a distant dream.
I prefer to see the BBC improve, not die, and that’s why I visit. It COULD be a force for good, and satisfy everyone. I understand the “choice” arguement, but also the arguement that the BBC do more than just spout leftist propaganda. Get rid of this, and they ARE a good thing.
I visit this site because of the GOOD posters, the exposing of the BBC’s shortcomings, and the upcoming book will certainly sit on my shelf. It is my hope that these points will be taken on board when the Tories win the election next year, and the BBC can get back to doing what it is supposed to do.
Not guilty , David !
But, I am really against banning and censoring except in extreme circumstances, such as identity theft !
Is it true that ScottM has been banned ? I must have missed that , can’t read every post. If so, why ? I don’t think I ever agreed with any of his posts and he was a bit of a pain, but not particulary offensive.
The persistent use of extreme vulgarity needs to be challenged, and if that means banning people then so be it. I’m not in favour of banning those who challenge points made on the blog, though.
Talking of bad language, was anybody else listening to Morning Reports just after half past five on R5L today? They played the wrong clip from one of their reporters – an f-bomb filled tirade about a trumpet in the background or something. It was most amusing. I doubt it will make Listen Again, but maybe some public-spirited engineer at the Beeb will sneak it onto the net.
Apparently the angry f-bomb rant was by the usually erudite racing correspondent Cornelius Lysaght. It hasn’t appeared online yet, and he hasn’t made any reference to it on twitter:
Tweets by CorneliusRacing
Listen, the ONLY people I have ever banned on any sites with which I am associated have strayed over the line and engaged in personal insults and or persistent trolling. If some think that harsh, tough. The idea that those who take issue with the site are banned is nonsense, people are free to disagree. They are not free to be disagreeable.
I want less bad language, is that such an extreme request? Really.
Fair enough.
I am sure that you were as distressed as I was when one particular poster abused your colleague DB recently, asking him:
Have’nt you managed to get it through your effing thick left wing bonehead yet
And then suggesting to DB that
Bes thing you could do arsehole is jump off a bridge
DB himself seemed to think that, as you put it, this poster had strayed over the line and engaged in personal insults.
Now, who could that be? And just how firm was the smack of your discipline?
DV, I don’t know why you banned ScottM, if indeed you have, but I guess there must have been a good reason. However, I’ve had several debates with him, and although I disagree entirely with most of his views, his posts (at least the ones I have seen) were not insulting or profane. If you apply your rule of banning rude or insulting posters, then I think Martin – while I agree with a good deal of his views – is more insulting than ScottM, so I think we need some consistency here. Just a thought, and no disrespect intended to anyone mentioned.
I think that if we are talking about civility and bad language, we also have to ask whether reference to ‘mozzies’, ‘rent boys’ etc is productive. Bad language is tolerated by some more than others it seems.
I’ve said this before, but in my opinion this site would have some credibility if a number of things happened:
1 – The bad language/insults tone went
2 – It focuses more on facts, as opposed to opinion
3 – The daily trickle of posts stop. Sitting there watching the tv trying to find bias in reports about stories you dislike is insanity – the same goes for hunting down ‘bias’ on radio or internet reports. There may be cases of an institutional type bias at the BBC – but not to the extent that there are so many posts about the absence of a certain word or phrase – especially when other tv stations/papers are guilty of the exact same thing.
4 – Linked to the above, you need to stop focusing on the BBC output about people you dislike, and picking up ANY quote that is seen as bias. A great example is bias. He is not popular here, never has been. That’s fine, we all have opinions. But the BBC cannot mention him without a post here about how they are supposedly fawning over him, worshipping his every move. It’s nonsense, farcical stuff.
My advice, is have longer, more infrequent, articles about actual bias, and attempt to explain and understand it – as opposed to the snide remarks and sneers that currently dominate commentary. David’s other blog is more of a ‘general rant’ site – this site is basically the same only with a tenuous link to the BBC. Maybe you don’t want the site to gain credibility outside of it’s small group of followers, fair enough then, ignore what i say. But my advice, if you want to be taken seriously by the uncoverted types, is to write fewer articles, actually properly researched and analysed, and forget the obvious right wing opinion dressed up as an attack on the BBC. IF your real intent is to create a sort of forum for opinion, then you are doing well. What you are not doing well is convincing anyone who doesn’t believe the BBC is biased that you may in fact have a case.
My four penn’orth is that profanity/threats/the usual might be worth a ban, disagreement – even persistent disagreement – is not.
On profanity, I’m just listening to R4 The News Quiz, as the ‘comedians’ fantasize about Tony Blair offering to lick Murdoch’s **** and offering him Cherie for a few hours. Comedy gold.
Next Monday on the Today programme : “What happened to civility in politics” ?
I’d like an honest comparison between comments here and comments on highly popular sites which aren’t supposedly discredited by swearing and vulgar jokes before anyone can credibly say that Martin or anyone else here discredits this site.
It’s bogus to say that nobody will respect this site because of comments like certain people are complaining about, when Guido, the Daily Kos, and the HuffingtonPost have the kind of comments they do, yet I don’t see anyone saying those sites are discredited because of foul language or a bit of humorous vulgarity. I suppose those complaining here no longer respect the Labour Government because Lord Mandelson called the Sun editors c*nts?
David V, if you want to clean up the language here, it’s your perogative, and I will support it. But I call BS on those claiming that this site is discredited in any way by the small percentage of comments you’re complaining about.
David P, I agree. Martin is usually accurate & to the point, he does not swear and above all he injects tongue in cheek humour to his posts & this blog in general. Humour is somthing that is lacking in the minds of the left as their blog comments show!
Ho Ho. What a perfect description of B-BBC humour!
Let’s take a look at accuracy, abstention from swearing, and tongue-in-cheek humour from the last half dozen or so posts of comedian Martin:
22:47:35 BST <i>the BBC are shitting rent boys at the thought of him sorting the druggie rent boy users out.</i>
22:49:38 BST <i> More Newsnight horseshit now wanking on. </i>
22:46:09 BST<i>Poor old Obama turd sniffers on newsnight</i>
19:36:00 BST<i>I see the Cocaine and 14 year old boy’s bottoms will be in full flow tonight in Islington </i>
18:37:17 BST<i>most of the people who seem to like the BBC seem to be scottish or from places like Liverpool, basically tight fisted
bastards</i>
18:31:52 BST <i>they employ scumbags called ‘comedians’ who spout this crap all the time.</i>
Hilarious. Still stuck on the toilet Roger?
Where are the examples of swearing then Boris?
Boris, do you feel this strongly about the comments on other blogs, or is this one special?
Do you feel that Guido or the DailyKos or LabourList are totally discredited because of language like that?
The blogs you mention are run by imbeciles, so I wouldn’t think they had much credit anyway, but the foul language does nothing to improve them.
Much more entertaining reading a blog where the author pretends to run a den of civility, completely oblivious to how ridiculous he now looks!
You don’t think anyone gives Guido or the Daily Kos much credit? Talk about being oblivious.
Only in the circles you inhabit, Mr Preiser.
Paul Staines is an angry and hypocritical moron (or should that be convicted criminal), who pretends to be a libertarian while attempting to sue and silence all those who disagree. He gets the commentariat he deserves: i.e. only those of well below average intelligence.
Yeah, that’s why so much of Westminster and UK media follow Guido’s blog, because nobody gives him any credit. Pull the other one.
Keep dreaming Mr Preiser.
Yeah, the BBC had Staines on because nobody listens to him. Or did I dream that?
Oh yes, let’s remind ourselves of that infamous episode.
Michael White deliciously exposing Mr Staines as a ludicrously self-inflated cretin and a charlatan with no regard for facts. Sounds familiar?
http://tiny.cc/Bqvs7
I see we have a troll boy here again. No work in the BBC newsroom today then? I thougt you were supposed to be over worked?
Well done again Martin. I’m impressed with your faecal continence today.
Gus,
Thanks for the detailed advice. I won’t be taking it.
David P,
I agree with what you say. It is my simple desire to keep the site as civil as possible.
Assorted Sock Puppets
Go away.
Well I’m grateful you just took time out of your busy life of bias hunting to read my post.
If you ever do stop and wonder why you, your ideas, or this site never got any credibility outside of the angry-white-man niche, maybe you’ll remember what I said. Look in the mirror David, your arrogance and ignorance is the reason your views are going nowhere fast.
Never? Several months ago we showed you examples of the BBC changing the CBBC website because of a fuss raised on this blog, as well as pointed out that several actual BBC employees came here regularly to debate charges of BBC bias. You can’t say “never”.
Now, rather than ad hominem attacks, can you debate issues of BBC bias? Or, like a few months ago, will you simply run away because you are unable to?
Gus
I suggest anger management classes for you 😉
I do agree with DV that the language should be toned down as it doesn’t help the blog and anyway subtle insults are so much more fun.
signed,
angry-white-man
Civil is best. I recall a post years ago on LGF. There was a thread expressing a good deal of anger abot the proposed memoroial to flight 93 – the one those heroic passengers brought down in Pennsylvania. The design was for a crescent of trees way too similar to the Islamic crescent to be coincidental. I was as angry as anyone because I saw it as an incredible slap in the face to those heroes and the other passengers and crew on that flight to create a memorial to them in the shape of the symbol beloved of the terrorists who had ended their lives. One LGFer posted a complaint he’d written to the organising committee. It was well-written, powerful and to the point. But he called the designers “cretins.” Not particularly offensive, but I thought it weakened an otherwise excellent argument.
I believe that DB, in his altercation with Martin a few days ago, made the point that if you indulge too much in name calling as a matter of habit, you run out names for those who really deserve your ire because you’ve used them on the less guilty.
So yes, I’m in broad agreement with you, David, on civility.
However, if you have really banned Scott M, I believe that was a mistake. Why not consult with people here before taking such a step?
Too True
If you walk into a bar, and are repeatedly rude to the barman, who then asks you to refrain from such ad hominem, but you still insist on personal abuse – you get banned. Scott M falls into this camp. I had no issue with his pro-BBC position but I took offence at his persistent abuse directed at me. I have to protect my human rights, you know =-O
Well, I dunno. I think there’s a difference between attacking the person and challenging the stance that person takes. I think ScottM had mostly the latter approach.
Thing is, it’s good to have a bit of thrust and parry – keeps us on our toes. Do we want, as the old Internet cliche goes, an echo chamber here?
I don’t think ScottM should have been banned just yet, but he was far more interested in slamming David Vance personally than in debating issues of BBC bias. Time and time again ScottM called him a liar, and stated that DV was as dishonest, but spent precious little time debating issues of BBC bias with him or the rest of us.
Nobody here wants an echo chamber either, but it would help if the defenders of the indefensible spent more time addressing the topics at hand and less time on ad hominem and making sarcastic remarks.
ScottM occasionally liked to say that he felt this site had real value pointing out examples of BBC bias, and it would be credible if only DV would go away. Yet, he never, ever agreed that anyone else had successfully pointed out examples of BBC bias either. So his thing was mostly just to slam David V, and not actually debate issues of BBC bias. It’s not that DV is always right, but ScottM’s position was that there was hardly anything else going on here except that. If he had spent more effort on debating the accusations of BBC bias, and less time simply calling DV a liar, I imagine he would not have been banned.
Testing
Juan tù
Can someone – preferably Mr Vance, as he has the power to ban – please clarify for me what a troll is? What is persistent trolling? I’ve never really had it defined for me. It seems a useful word – on the one hand you can claim that disagreement and debate are welcome here, but on the other hand you can whip out that label and use its magical powers to dismiss the need to argue your case or address points raised by an opponent.
I think that if DV wants to tone down the language, that’s his prerogative. But if he wants to rid the site of ‘persistent trolling’ then he might do us all a favour and define precisely what that is. And while he’s at it – what is a ‘sock puppet’ and why exactly should they ‘go away’?
As far as swearing and insult are concerned, I agree with DV. Not for moral reasons, but simply because the things that persuade people of your case are evidence, facts, reasoning, argument – etc. Not name-calling and obscenity.
That said – I don’t really see much actual difference between ‘sock puppets go away’ and ‘sock-puppets f#ck off’.
And by the way – after a couple of years of following this site, does anyone still think it’s clever or insightful to accuse any defender of the BBC of secretly being an employee working in the BBC newsroom? Firstly, it’s tiresome and predictable. Secondly, it’s irrational and makes the accuser look like a tedious nut. Thirdly, so what? What if every single defender of the BBC that comments here IS an employee of the Corporation? Why should that matter? What is the sensible and persuasive response to that suspicion:
a) to say they are sock puppets working for the BBC and thus ignore their arguments and call them rent-boy-raping trolls
or
b) demonstrate that their defence of the BBC article in question is flawed or dishonest
??? Gee, that’s a tough one innit?
A sock puppet is someone who posts comments under another name to support his own statements and/or opinions. It is intended to create the impression that more than one person shares that view, thus lending it more weight.
I accused Boris Godunoff of being one because I suspect he is actually posting comments regularly (or used to, if it’s who I think it is) under another name, and is now posing as a late 16th Century Tsar. We’ve had people in the past come back under different names, pretending that they are not the same person.
This does not necessarily mean they work for the BBC, and I have not accused anyone of being a BBC employee. It just means this is another defender of the indefensible trying to create the impression that more people are on his side.
Interesting that you seem to feel that the defenders of the indefensible state more reasoned cases with less ad hominem and snark that regular commenters here.
Bad luck Mr Prieser. Surprise you as it might, there are many who find this site a source of entertainment.
I’m delighted that David has promoted me from ‘sock puppet’ to ‘troll’. He does know how to treat his guests well.
And you are obviously unable to debate the issues. You are here only to insult. How is that not being a troll, then?
You’re nothing but a leftie beeboid.
you and your liebour lovers just don’t get it do you…..
Bio
Hello!
Too True/David P
I am very happy to have my every view challenged but Scott could not get past calling me a liar at every opportunity and in truth I just got fed up with him. I have banned VERY few people over the past few years – in fact I think I only banned Hillhunt – who has subsequently reinvented himself as you know who!
leadinyellow
A troll is someone who seeks to disrupt threads by engaging in serial off topic behaviour. It is NOT someone who disagrees with post topic, that is always fine. I have endured trolls for years on the net now and in the final analysis, I will remove them. Here on B-BBC we get a few and I have no idea from whence they come but their game is obvious.
Helloooo Mr Vance! 😎
DV (and DP) – thank you for clarifying those terms.
DP – I’m all for using the correct nomenclature: if a certain person is a troll or a sock-puppet, then call them a troll or a sock puppet, in the same way that I would call a terrorist a ‘terrorist’ rather than a ‘militant’. Seems sensible to me.
What troubles me is when a sock puppet occasionally raises a point worth rebutting, but instead all we get are conspiracy theories about a certain sock-puppet’s previous username and insults that ramble on meaninglessly. So what if they’re a sock puppet? If you can (a) refute their argument, and (b) call them a sock puppet, then that’s great!
I’m disappointed at the regularity with which openly anti-Labour invective and tedious terms like ‘McDoom’ and ‘ZanuLiebour’ appear here. Not only is the latter painfully and dismally contrived, but they detract from the argument of the site in my opinion. We should focus our attacks on the BBC. If the BBC wants to defend itself by dismissing us as rabidly partial right-wing nutjobs rather than genuinely appalled and concerned citizens, we do sometimes make that argument rather too easy a resort for them. They can look at the sneeringly anti-Labour invective in the comments (and sometimes in the posts themselves) and defend themselves by pointing out that they could never criticise the left enough to please people like us – and that therefore we are not the voices to listen to when judging BBC impartiality.
David P, I just re-read my comment from earlier and am still baffled by precisely where you think I stated or even implied that,
“the defenders of the indefensible state more reasoned cases with less ad hominem and snark that regular commenters here.”
I don’t think that, and I didn’t imply it. In fact, I think that defenders of the BBC can state what the hell they want, any way they want. If they embarrass or demean themselves or the Corporation by their arguments or language, then I really am fine with that! But we should maintain the integrity of this site by being better than that! That’s why I was keen to point out what I think are the occasional weaknesses in our approach while ignoring theirs. It’s because their language and tone are no concern of mine – let them discredit themselves, as long as we don’t do the same.
Cheers 🙂
<div>
</div>