48 Bonita
My experience, though short, is different.

The moderator is not at fault. While posting feedback
the one who send his or her view need respect others
too.But that was not happening. Both who post in favor 
and against become personal war of word exchangers
and this irritatesnot only the "Umpire" but the spectotors
too! My suggestion is the moment one gets personal 
ignore to reply.

Ref #272 by Whatsinaname.

I have often complained of the inconsistency of the moderators policy. I don't know whether this is because different moderators on duty have different yardsticks or whether it all depends on the mood of the person wielding the red pen (or whatever the cyber equivalent is).

In 2011, my "posting privileges" were withdrawn for "misuse in the past". I wrote to Outlook and the posting privileges were restored. Since no explanation was given for the sanction nor its withdrawal, I have no idea what I did to merit such action.

Personal abuse is rampant and yet Outlook does nothing to stop it. I resorted to a pseudynm as use of my full name elicited virulent abuse from one or two misguided individuals which Outlook did nothing to stop. Quite recently, a frequent poster called me a bastard. Since I am aware of my antecedents such abuse is water off a duck's back and reflects on the person using the term. More to the point is that use of the word has gone unchallenged by the moderators. Is that because I did not complain? I don't know.

To be consistent, either Outlook should permit all forms of ad hominem attacks or else delete them all. I'm afraid that if the latter course is followed, very little will appear on rants and Raves. Alternately, Outlook can publish a list of abusive terms which are acceptable and those which are proscribed. Posters will then know where thay stand.

As often in the past, I was amused to see my comment for the article

www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx

getting deleted. It was likely the result of my use of the term a**hole (without the qualifications).

While I understand that this is offensive, per my opinion and the point I've raised repeatedly, it is no worse than terms like gutter rat or ill bred moron, etc., which are frequently used and allowed by the moderators.

The usual excuse that is proferred is that moderators act only when someone complains. Since someone complained, it was deleted, and if I have a problem with some posts, I should whine too.

Given that I believe that we're all grown ups here, and don't like to complain (except in stray cases, where someone is posting entirely unrelated stuff, or posting the same message multiple times. There too, I doubt I've ever complained), I don't want to take that option.

However, at the same time, is it possible to request the moderators to highlight the name of the complainant? I think if my posts are getting deleted, I have a right to know the person who is finding them irrelevant or offensive. It would also let us know if the person taking offense is a frequent abuser himself (or herself).

What do my fellow posters and moderators think?

Please refer to comments #268 and 269 and your response #270.

The same comment has been posted over thirty times in different threads. If this is not a violation of the website policy on comments, I don't know what is.

As per your instructions I have reported this as abuse at least 10 times, yet the same comment continues to appear.

Please read the policy thread carefully. The moderators consider comments for deletion only if they are marked as abuse using the appropriate button. So instead of blaming them, the right thing to do, should you wish to complain, is to just mark the offending comments as abuse.

Since my previous pot #268, the same comment has been posted 9 more times. On a previous occasion almost an entire thread was deleted. Why is there this selective application of rules. I would therefore, recommend that if this is Outlook Policy then an addional rule be stipulated.

Outlook reserves the right to enforce or not enforce the rules depending on the mood of the moderator.

Please do not post the same message again and again. Even in different threads. Please DO NOT type in ALL CAPS. Please do not use the bold and italics function indiscriminately. All such messages are liable to be deleted at the full discretion of our moderators.

This rule is violated repeatedly. Just read today's daily mail and you will see the same comment posted seven times on different threads. Why is this being allowed?

>> I have also noticed that the majority of offending posts have been written between midnight and 7 am IST. Is this my imagination or is there some correlation between time of post and likelihood of deletion?

Maybe it's because that's the time when many of us NRI trolls (or Internet Hindus as the "sickos" would like to call us), are active, indulging in ad hominem attacks, name calling, and insulting each other :-)

 Ï posted the following in the thread Togadia Attacks Centre for 'Minority Appeasement'

PS. I see your post #3 has been deleted. I do not know what was objectionable, but I do believe that the moderators are inconsistent. There are many posts which quite clearly do not meet the stated standards which get through the net.

Perhaps it should have been posted here. I appreciate that the moderators have a difficult job and even more that Outlook has a policy of post-moderation rather than pre-censorship.

Many posts would fall in the category of "ad hominem" and if this was strictly applied, all posts wherein one individual responds to another with jehadi, sickular, moron, imbecile, liar, guttersnipe etc should automatically 

If action is only taken on the basis of reported abuse, it would be quite easy for someone to arrange for posts he disagreed with to be removed rather than engage in polite debate.

I have also noticed that the majority of offending posts have been written between midnight and 7 am IST. Is this my imagination or is there some correlation between time of post and likelihood of deletion?

Finally, in keeping with Sibal's Law, could you have another category of abuse viz. annoyance. Half the comments annoy me (I am very easily annoyed) and are therefore in violation of the Sec 66A of the IT Act. :)

>> It is possible that the moderators err every now and then, but before accusing them of bias, please do follow whether you are keeping your end of the bargain.

Fair enough.

A comment was deleted from the Terror Returns thread and is being posted here

I was amused to see that several of my comments were removed.

While I doubt this shall be allowed to stay either, am hoping it shall be, to at least allow me to point out selective application of the policy by the moderators.

Comments protesting comments policy should be posted in this thread. Normally, such comments posted elsewhere are simply deleted, but since the moderators were questioned, we will simply request a careful perusal of the Comments Policy once again.

The moderators likely didn't like my references to "taking the pants off". Would like to remind them that I was not the one who brought up that phrase. I directed all these posts at the poster who himself brought it up.

Without getting into specifics, please note that the post in which it was first brought up was also deleted before responses to it were deleted.

You will please note that a lot of such leeway has been given in the past, be it about "squealing like a stuck pig" or other such phrases first used by a poster.

Also, yes, the moderators do note that the same poster does routinely call others names and then protests when paid back in the same coin. But the moderators have their hands tied as they are advised to take action only against the comments marked for abuse.

Which is why for cases like the following, instead of accusing the moderators of selective application of policy, you would be making their job simpler by marking the offending comment as abuse, assigning reasons:

I've seen moderators give a lot of leeway to some posters. For example, an unnecessary and entirely irrelevant reference is often made to "genocide advocate" in unrelated threads, and is regularly allowed.

Please note, a lot is regularly allowed. We try not to screen or censor comments and delete comments if complaints are received and, on review, are found to have substance. It is possible that the moderators err every now and then, but before accusing them of bias, please do follow whether you are keeping your end of the bargain.

Thank you for helping us keep this area very lightly moderated.

Dear Editor,

Ref Chandrani Banerjee article on `Spooky Money' in Nov 26 issue. Factually incorrect. I have never been a member of any Government task force on Security. The IDSA report was completed in April, 2011. The IDSA task force does not exist at present. Grateful correct.

Rana Banerji

This is with reference to a comment of mine that was deleted (51/D-28, main story: http://blogs.outlookindia.com/default.aspx?ddm=10&pid=2858&eid=31). I’ve got no issues if the moderator chooses to delete a comment; my request is that a consistent yardstick be applied.

My comment was in response to the immediately preceding letter (50/D-134) by Kiran, who had posted text from a Thomas Friedman article and had provided the link to the relevant writing. As a response, i sent Kiran a link regarding the politics of Friedman.

I found it perplexing that Kiran’s comment continues to be retained (i’ve got no issues with it per se). However, if the moderator took a decision to delete a comment about Friedman (for whatever reasons), then the writings of Friedman and the link to his article, which prompted the deleted comment, ought to have subjected to the same scrutiny as well.

p.s.
I had written sometime ago about allowing a bit of banter to take place (so long as it is inoffensive). I also realise that i speak from the perspective of someone on the outside; Outlook must have its own practical reasons for its website policy. However, it would also be nice if certain debates are allowed to linger on for a wee bit longer.

Precisely. Why become a replica of the contemptible? Why persist in stooping as low as the lowest common denominator? Why not try and ignore the repeat offenders so that at least they stand out for being uncouth?

I find the same copy-cat phenomenon when it comes to many of the ills that earlier were confined to some groups. Be it in matters of speech or protests or taking offence at real or perceived insults and resorting to violence.

Well, Shabnam Ali, you do have a point.

In my defence, I would admit to using "whining like a stuck pig" but only because a certain pious person used the term and then objected when he was subjected to it himself. The idea has been only to drive the point home that one should sometimes be administered a dose of their own medicine. I do however admit that perhaps it is time for others to move on, even if the self-appointed physician does not heal himself.

I have a request for some of the regular posters and also for the moderators. I realise that the moderators have a thankless job as they have to wade through a lot of irrelevant and digressionary stuff from many of the regular and self-righteous posters. But it would help if you just did not allow ad hominem like "ill-bred morons", "whining like a stuck pig" 'madrasa trained jehadi" "chaddis from the shakha' etc. I realise that you try to be consistent in your policy, but no offence to any body who so uses these terms, but it becomes very unsavoury to keep on encountering such messages. Used sparingly, and with some with, it could perhaps be acceptable, but there seems to be a profusion of these here of late.

Am an old time reader, so thought would take the liberty of making this request. Thanks for all the good work.

 @ Saroja,

Yes they do want to dumb down debates. But not conciously. Kapil Sibal atleast tells you why he wants things removed.  These guys are yet to evolve to that stage. But they are good at showing there is no need to answer any queries regarding their policy. Now and then they say "Its our website dammit!".Hats off to that. They get traffic, good reader engagement and yet remove comments that mentions them or their policy.

Bug report:
Whenever the title/heading of a news item starts in italic, posting comment will return error.

Error return:
<%@ Page Language="C#" AutoEventWireup="true" CodeBehind="GenericErrorPage.aspx.cs" Inherits="outlooklivenews.GenericErrorPage" %>

Tested on:
CNN, Time Suspend Fareed Zakaria for Plagiarism

 Comments 5/D-122, 6/D-127 were removed. They were about recent Dalit events like rights to beef-eating on an article talking about protecting Dalit voices.

I'm scratching my head against the website policy items. Seems as capricious as Kapil Sibal's censorship wishes. Care to explain why?   

 Why are my comments being deleted without any specific reason? Is this how a genuine Muslim voice is muzzled in this Hindu country. If a Hindu wants a Hindu rashtra, it can be tolerated but if a Muslim wants Sharia in this country, then that voice is hushed up. If you call yourself secular, then let a Muslim say what he or she wants. 

 Is there some policy where some commentators are given preferred status? Or their comments are never deleted? I find anwaar to be one such commentator.Just wondering...

How do I log out? This is something basic which every website provides. Thanks.

hey moderator, can i delete some of my comments?
jackass
lol, india

Please read point 9 in the comments policy.

What you could do is to mark those comments you find objectionable via the Abuse Comment button and our moderators could decide on the merits of the case.

Users do not have the rights to delete their own comments, mainly because there might be responses to the comment in question, and the moderators thus have to take a call on going through long, old threads.

 hey moderator, can i delete some of my comments? 

Hi Moderators, what's this new post numbering system?

Sorry for the delay in responding to this. The website shows comments at two places: 1. Under the article in question and 2. On the Rants & Raves Page.

We found that there was often confusion about identifying the comment by number. So now each comment posted on the site gets two numbers: one is the chronological number on the rants and raves page which is prefixed by D [which stands for Daily].

The other number is without any prefix - it is simply the serial number of the comment against an article.

Thus, this comment would be #241 against this blog post and #D-95 on the rants page. So we will list it as 241/D-95 if you read it under the blogpost and as D-95/241 if you read it on the Rants page.

We trust it is clear and apologies for the confusion and the late reply.

A happy new year to all our readers.
 

 Hi Moderators, what's this new post numbering system?

I found my comment praising B Ramans article removed for being against web site policy.

Can you tell me how?

I may have commented about congress muslim votes obsession but that cannot be termed as against policy. I guess Anwaar clicks the button for spam and moderator removes the comment. Too many comments are removed.

Please note one final time:

1. The feedback section is NOT for "kicking an adversary's soft underbellies" [sic]

2. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Habitual offenders will have their posting privileges withdrawn.

The website policy is sound, and the moderators are fair, but the task of leaving a very offensive message on display, unanswered, for 24 hours may sometimes be too much for ordinary folks. The habitual offender may be posting his hate messages just for the satisfaction of having them displayed for at least a few hours.

>> "This is in response to the thread hijack with a discussion on CAIR...... .....Our moderators have been VERY lenient so far, but their patience is not infinite." - OutlookIndia.com

To set my records straight, I don't give a crap for what CAIR is and what it does. But, I do enjoy the luxury of kicking an adversary's soft underbellies..... :-)

As for moderation, I agree that you have a thankless, boring and difficult task on hand. And, I sincerely salute the Outlook team for the degree of freedom and leniency it allows to its readers, myself included. So, I say a heartfelt THANKS one week in advance of Thanksgiving Day.

This is in response to the thread hijack with a discussion on CAIR.

Despite those irrelevant messages being deleted, someone persists in posting yet another irrelevant remark and someone else, while marking that as abuse, and demanding that it be taken off, yet could not resist the urge to respond.

Please note that our moderators are not obliged to take action on messages marked as abuse immediately.

Please wait for at least 24 hours before reporting it as abused again. It is possible that the moderators, in their wisdom, may not agree with your request.

Please also note that persistent abuse —as determined by our moderators— of Comments Policy could result in posting privileges being withdrawn.

Our moderators have been VERY lenient so far, but their patience is not infinite.

I was very disappointed, though not entirely surprised that the moderators decided to delete a bunch of my comments in the thread

blogs.outlookindia.com/default.aspx

I can well understand that the comments violated the policies. However, would like to point out, that such policies are repeatedly violated, in a most absurd manner, by the same poster at whom these comments were directed, and the moderators show a very high tolerance level there. Let me cite some examples

1. My comments were abusive

Yes they were, and deliberately so. The same poster habitually calls others liars, Sanghis, fascists, Nazis, ill bred morons, stuck pigs, and more. The moderators consistently let these pass. Why should then abuse directed against such a regularly abusive poster be censored.

2. My comments were not on topic

This is a gray area. My first comments were on topic, highlighting the inconsistent approach of the poster in two different, but similar sceanrios, just because, different religions were involved. I was accused of being a vicious liar. I took lot of trouble to find the exact quotes, and give reference to them, to show that my point was indeed valid, and the poster was lying again.

I personally don't think this is off topic. At worst, it is a digression. But if it is to be considered off topic, then why is the same poster allowed a similar leeway? In every thread, he attacks Irreverant as a "genocide advocate", even when it is unrelated to the topic, and despite Irreverant repeatedly clarifying his stance.

I wonder if the moderators shall care to explain this discrepancy, or hide behind their usual excuses (if you have trouble with something, you should whine too, or that it is subjective, so don't complain)? Worse, will these comments itself be deleted?

Or is Outlook following the usual secular policies that only seculars are allowed to lie, cheat and insult others, while similar comments by others shall be censored.

i forgot the comment so am asking!

what was the comment content that violated your policy? at least have it somewhere

Please note: Our moderators are actually advised to allow critical comments, the more critical the better. But we do very strongly advise them to draw the line at off-topic free-for-all commentary. so by all means be critical, but with the subject matter of the article. So if the article is on SAK's trip to England, it doesn't really help to start posting URLs about what a great guy Savarkar was or how SAK was more bigoted than Savarkar or vice versa.

Likewise, this is the thread for complaints (or criticism of, or suggestions for) regarding our comments policy.

For those who still haven't figured it out:

Perfectly OK to express dissenting views, but please ensure that these are not thread diversions.

Feel free to dissent, disagree, dissect - but please do so in the right thread.

And please: if we find that all you seem to do is copy-paste articles from other sites, our moderators would be entitled to assume that your interest is not really to post feedback to the article under question but further an agenda of your own. You are entitled to it, but we would request our users to try and use their own words to the extent possible.

Thank you.

Does the digression thread work only with IE? I am not able to see it in Safari.

I think the criticims of the Outlook team is unair. Of all the Indian news-sites, Outlook is the most open minded with barely any moderating restrictions. Moreover, most of its competitors do not allow access to all articles in the magazine. Outlook, by those standards, is very open and accessible.

Kudos to the team. You all rock!!

What is 'Digression Thread' ?

As some of you may have noted, we have been experimenting with shifting some of the off-topic comments posted in the feedback section to another tab next to the Daily Mail tab under each such relevant article. For the moment we have named them Digression.

We tried a  out for the Ramayana thread earlier and likewise, for the Syed Ahmed piece. None of the off-topic messages were deleted; they were only shifted to this new tab.

Our programmers are at work so that there would be a link to each such comment so shifted from the Rants and Raves page. For the moment, till this is done, please look for the Digression tab at the end of each relevant article, next to the tab for Daily Mail.

We should emphasise that Digression tabs would not be a standard practice -- off-topic comments on most articles would continue to be removed as usual. The moderators, entirely at their discretion, would decide whether an off-topic comment needs to be removed or shifted to Digression as part of an entirely different thread, a separate exchange of divergent views, though not stirctly relevant as feedback to the subject at the hand.

Please try to keep your comments civil. As we see it, this tab would have utility only for thematic discussions and is not meant as a general free for all. Our moderators would end up taking subjective calls, and we'd go with their judgement.

We hope it fosters a spirit of debate and exchange of ideas and is not reduced to name-calling and ad hominem!

Thank you for your help.

Just saw that all posts [] about number of those killed in 84 have been deleted. I guess the last couple (and probably this) shall be deleted too.

Maybe Outlook can have a separate section for this. Sometimes discussions do take a tangential turn, but most of these posts had been around for couple of weeks. Given the tone and nature of Outlook's articles, one can safely assume that they like controversies. Then why delete these posts. Or at least, be prompt about them

Fair point.

We try to be prompt if off-topic messages are flagged by users and sometimes hope that a slight digression would not develop into a full-fledged thread hijack. If the thread actually resulted in a meaningful dialogue, perhaps there could be a case for transferring the whole thread to a different section, but when it seems to be excessive heat and no light, and the issue involved is something that can be looked up easily in a reference source (including articles on Outlook itself) perhaps our moderators should be allowed the indulgence. And, yes, admittedly our moderators need to be prompter in deleting such developing threa(d/t)s!

Also: if a meaningful dialogue is sought to be started, we'd recommend finding a suitable article using Search or Topics (from the dropdown on Resources in the global navigation bar at the top of the site):

http://news.outlookindia.com/topics.aspx

We strongly urge readers not to persistently post links to articles that are manifestly flamebaits, as is clear from accompanying comments: "this forum's favourite writer, sure to provoke..." "so and so has struck a chord. Good"

Underlining links in comment area is not a good idea. It is distracting.

Suggestion [none are entertained though :) ]:
Is it possible to develop an application in your site that we can auto repost (by clicking a button) our comments from here to facebook (or twitter) and have Outlook article link along with for ref?

Comment removed for violation of Website Policy

Moderator's Note: Please post your responses to the short-takes in the relevant feedback section.

This section is for the website policy on comments and NOT on the editorial policy of the website. For the editorial policy on choice of stories or blogs, please write to edit AT outlookindia DOT com

In the selection of comments printed on the article "The Peacekeeper's Child" there was an edited comment from an individual who had made blatantly defamatory comments against Gen Bikram Singh, accusing him of corruption and acting on religous lines. Instead of deleting this comment in its entirety, the defamatory parts have been edited out and an extract published.

This contradicts Outlook's own editorial policy which states (#151) :

We have always maintained an all or nothing policy on the website, and that is how we hope to continue -- either your entire comment stays or the entire comment is removed.

To the Outlook Moderation team,

It's obvious where your allegiance lies. A post laying down the facts regarding the Sanjib Bhatt matter (as contained in his show cause notice) is promptly deleted. I can understand why Outlook would want the media propaganda to continue unabated.

Two copies of the above message were deleted from the feedback thread to Wire stories.

Please note: the feedback thread is not for levelling allegations on moderators or for questioning where their "allegiance lies".

Moderators have a thankless job in ensuring that spam (yes, long press releases, from the same quarters copy-pasted again and again and again even in irrelevant threads are nothing but spam) is not allowed on the site and the feedback areas are meant for feedback to the story in question.

We may allow outside URLs with short descriptions if we deem them fit, but when one user is repeatedly seen to be posting nothing else but the same message in various threads, the moderators are instructed to delete those messages, and also remove the posting privileges of the user found persistenly abusing the website policy.

Perhaps the irony of posting the same message again and again and again and yet again alleging propaganda is lost on the poster.

Thank you for your understanding.

People post quotes and references from other publications. When the objectivity of the author or publication is questioned, the comment is deemed off topic and deleted but the original disputed comment is allowed to stand.

No, actually, it is not.  If the disputed comment is allowed, the moderators perhaps deem it as providing another perspective. That perspective can be questioned. Questioning the author or publication is analogous to questioning, to take the example above, the two authors of Seven Questions and why they were not writing on something else that happened nine years back. It is better to question the content of the message and not the messenger.

This is licence for people to slip in any sort of drivel from some unknown idealogue because it has been published elsewhere.

That indeed is the case often. Clicking on "Report Abuse" might get redressal more often than expressing views about the IQ levels/sense of humour etc of posters or the authors or the moderators in the feedback area.

We strongly advise judicious use of Report Abuse button. You may click on it again if no action is taken in more than 24 hours [do allow for more time over the weekends/holidays]. The moderators may indeed feel free to over-rule the complaint, but if you consider the complaint to be serious and deserving of redressal, by all means mail separately to edit AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header marked Complaint, providing relevant URLs etc. But please do not complain about non-redressals of complaints or start meta-threads about comment policy in feedback area