On comments

I was told when I started this that comment management can be a pain in the ass.  And it is.  I really don’t know the protocol so I figure it out myself.  I try and ensure all opinions are represented.  I try and keep it civil but don’t always.  And I try and make sure the comments keep it interesting.

Recently one commenter has complained that I’m stifling debate because I’ve held back three of his lengthy comments.  Here’s his recent post to me, which he demanded I post or he would do ‘something’, I know not what.

Comment:
Ian I have made three different responses to this discussion you have withheld.

I would like know why.

I am stunned by this “stifling of debate” and lends even more credence to Kwans notinons and statement.

I want this notice posted and a response please.

I dont appreciate wasting my time contributing to have you edit out my comments.

I can understand if they are smears and or trolling but I have had posts both on and off list in support of what I have been saying so I clearly am not here in a bid to undermine of castigate as many others whose posts you have allowed clearly are.

Please explain or i will post the responses to a broader audience and point them to these threads.

Kevin

Approve it: http://therealstory.ca/wordpress/wp-admin/comment.php?action=approve&c=1251
Trash it: http://therealstory.ca/wordpress/wp-admin/comment.php?action=trash&c=1251
Spam it: http://therealstory.ca/wordpress/wp-admin/comment.php?action=spam&c=1251

And here’s my response:  Kevin, your two to three hundred word responses eat up room in the conversation and restate over and over again your point of view.  I try to ensure no point of view is mis or underrepresented but I also try and ensure that one person doesn’t dominate and push out discussion.  Keep it shorter please or write your own blog.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to On comments

  1. Kevin Logan says:

    My responses were in direct correlation to others who were in engaged in a discussion.

    They were not as you say repeats of a my point of view.

    Instead they were part of dialogue you are now crushing.

    This is your blog and you do have that right, but I notice one you have recently taken.

    Many here have commented how much they appreciate the opennes of dialogue I was one of them.

    Now you have simply reinforced, as you have done repeatedly lately, precisely what detractors have stated they are fed up with and it is exactly motivated the “dissent” you have reserved the pages to decry.

    I said what I would do is post my replies to the discussion to a broader audience and point them to these pages and relevant pages so as they themselves might see exactly what goes on here.

    I think it is fair comment to shorten my replies and will but I also think it fair you post what I said before selectively removing them on unstated policies of length.

    I understand that we should not use your board to advertise or campaign and you know – having read my responses – I was not doing that.

    Regards
    Kevin

  2. Brenton says:

    I’m all for open debate and such, but how can a reader demand this? Perhaps he is not clear about what a blog is.

  3. labelledatbirth says:

    I fully admit to the full range of emotions surrounding recent events ..but now what?
    Our leader has been run over by a bus; a new one must be chosen because what we stand for does not take holidays. Do we push to elect a new leader within 90 days under the constitutional quotas currently set, by the membership as it stood at the time of the event? Do we do a national talent hunt, then give the chosen ones time to sign on new members to effect a constitutional change to reflect their electable image? Do we make the MLA with the most constituency members the interm (and most democratically elected) leader? Will we be led by threat, inuendo and voice without substance?
    Our school boards need hard numbers to budget, our health care isn’t, our resources are leaking away and our infrastructure is crumbling. As a party we are seen to be dithering. More than anything else that has happened, the future of our party depends not on who takes control (there are always out-of-control buses), but how the public sees the process we go through. Get it right and we’re fit to govern; be perceived as a pre-anti-bullying schoolyard mob with no lasting definable rules, and we’re not.

  4. Kevin Logan says:

    The title here is:

    The Real Story

    bi-lined with:

    Politics here and there

    It is not :

    A list for sycophants

    bi-lined with

    No politics allowed here

    But I am more than happy to no longer post or send viewers or participants to waste time on these pages.

    Cheers
    Kevin

  5. Annie says:

    I’m appalled at some of the comments on these pages. Particularly Grant G. on Renewal and Trust post. Ian, you and your family don’t deserve this. I would recommend that you shut down the comments section of your blog. People who want to share their opinions can start their own blogs. Just because you blog doesn’t mean you should be subjected to abuse.

  6. Tapped-out and Wiped out Middleclass says:

    I’m With Kevin

  7. Rick says:

    I think this definition of politician aptly describes most of our politicians today– a person active in politics chiefly for his own profit or that of his party.

    I think it is high time for these people to actually work for the people who pay their salaries rather than personal or party or friends benefit.

  8. Dave says:

    And what if Carole James runs, and wins, with the same majority; will the Bakers Dozen being in the minority respect the majority……. if Carole James doesn’t run, and the new NDP leader gets the same majority as Carole James held before being pulled down, will those who are in the minority take the same road as the Bakers’s Dozen and ask for another leadership convention. If …………

  9. Homozivicus says:

    Kevin: substitute “Ian’s house” for “The Real Story” and would you still be demanding all the rules be allowed to suit you? Would you still be saying Ian is unreasonable for saying people can’t be abusive or yell at each other in his house? Or that they can insult him in his own house? I fear you’ve lost all perspective here. Posting to someone else’s site is not a right, it’s a privilege.

  10. James King says:

    Ian.

    It’s your blog to do with what you will.

    If you don’t like the tenor, the tone or the length of a submission – don’t post it – and don’t think you have to provide ‘reasons’ either.

    As for wasting anyone’s time – don’t sweat that one either. Anybody who’s very concerned about their time management shouldn’t be posting and/or reading blogs – you owe none of us anything – which doesn’t mean that one doesn’t find value here.

    But it happens to be value enlivened and informed by your own experience and point of view; in other words, the good stuff comes with your writing – the comments are largely irrelevant.

    People who come here to carp or push their own agenda are free to post it elsewhere, at their leisure.

    Keep up the good work.

  11. PJ says:

    Ian, Kwan’s only sin ( I am using that word because is seems to be what you are implying ), is that she listened to the people of this province like myself, that knew that Carol James had to step down if we had any chance of getting the death grip of the liberals off of this province.

    Carol was not listening, for if she was, she would have stepped down after her loss in the last election. However, it her choice to made a unilateral decision that she was the only salvation for the NDP.

    Quite frankly Ian, she was acting much like Gordon Campbell.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *