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In 2011, my "posting privileges" were withdrawn for "misuse in the past".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.

Moderator's Note: Such letters are best mailed to the editor of the print magazine, the email address is: letters AT outlookindia DOT com

---

I am posting here as this is a general comment.

It seems Outlook has given up all pretence of being a balanced magazine which publishes articles reflecting different shades of political opinion. Either the editorial staff have been specially selected for their ability to write articles favouring a particular political disposition and denigrating their opponents.

This in itself is not bad, provided the magazine declares itself as such i.e. that it is pro a particular party. No one in the US has any doubts that the Wall Street Journal or Fox News is unabashedly pro-Republican. For whatever reason Indian journals are shy of stating that they favour a particular party. This week's edition is an extreme example. Two articles lauding the Congress and five running down Modi. In addition two more articles giving one version of the Babri Masjid affaire.

A long time ago in one of your anniversary editions I wrote "To be accused by both sides of the political divide of being a stooge of the other, is the best compliment Outlook can get". I'm afraid this no longer applies. Outlook has come along way in the 13 years since I wrote that and unfortunately, it has been mostly downhill.

Moderator's Note: Such letters are best mailed to the editor of the print magazine, the email address is: letters AT outlookindia DOT com

---

I am posting here as this is a general comment.

It seems Outlook has given up all pretence of being a balanced magazine which publishes articles reflecting different shades of political opinion. Either the editorial staff have been specially selected for their ability to write articles favouring a particular political disposition and denigrating their opponents.

This in itself is not bad, provided the magazine declares itself as such i.e. that it is pro a particular party. No one in the US has any doubts that the Wall Street Journal or Fox News is unabashedly pro-Republican. For whatever reason Indian journals are shy of stating that they favour a particular party. This week's edition is an extreme example. Two articles lauding the Congress and five running down Modi. In addition two more articles giving one version of the Babri Masjid affaire.

A long time ago in one of your anniversary editions I wrote "To be accused by both sides of the political divide of being a stooge of the other, is the best compliment Outlook can get". I'm afraid this no longer applies. Outlook has come along way in the 13 years since I wrote that and unfortunately, it has been mostly downhill.