Daily Review 21/03/2018

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, March 21st, 2018 - 36 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

36 comments on “Daily Review 21/03/2018”

  1. AsleepWhileWalking 1

    He makes a good point – why would you hire a QC to get the court to suppress details that appear to be of no consequence?

    It was a coroner’s inquiry into Kerry Blair’s disappearance where Cassels appeared only as a witness (but still deemed hiring if a QC necessary).

    http://eriemystery.info/wp/index.php/alasdair-cassels/

    • Whispering Kate 1.1

      The one thing I got from reading the article is – you would be a fool to take on a job with the guy – you would have a short shelf life. There are some people who go through life and get away with everything – he has some pretty unpleasant mates which don’t add much to his life successes. I always thought Christchurch was a weird sort of a place, a square sort of a city with no air flow through it – nothing to bring a breathe of fresh air in.

      Those kids have to be somewhere – its a shame they can’t be given a proper resting place. That’s one thing I would like to see closure to, no parents deserve to not be able to know where their kids are resting. Too many things have been left covered up – its about time the crime was solved.

  2. Kat 2

    Sometimes, just sometimes the Herald publishes something worth reading:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12016676

  3. adam 3

    Can I say, I’ve had my moments with Psycho Milt and some pretty rough arguments. And we are not best buddies by a long shot. Plus, he has got on nerve at times. I’m guessing he has thought the same about me. However.

    Dear moderators, Psycho Milt does pull his head in when asked. And he does not generally start flame wars. He does write to improve the conditions of working people, and at the core, he does write here to improve the labour movement (broad house which that is). And whilst myself and other may disagree with him on how we get there, I’ve never doubt Psycho Milt wants working people’s lives to be better.

    I’d like to ask that he does not receive a year ban. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

    • Stunned Mullet 3.1

      Agreed – moderators giving a one year ban for anyone is the plot being lost.

      • Muttonbird 3.1.1

        Except CV, when even a permaban is totally justified.

        • One Two 3.1.1.1

          Still asking for the punishment of others…putting the boot in…when they can’t defend…

          Callow!

          [there is an even lower tolerance than normal today for winding people up, so please don’t start having a go at people – weka]

          • Muttonbird 3.1.1.1.1

            He’s been banned for a year. The moderators have explained why.

            There are a few comments about CV being important and lamenting the latest ban, but they appear to be reminiscing about a commenter who no longer exists.

            As others have suggested, he’s changed focus and conviction, and has become quite the delinquent.

            • One Two 3.1.1.1.1.1

              Muttonbird sound as if you’ve been let down in some way…

              CV has made some interesting positions in recent times, but if others don’t agree or can’t get where he’s coming from, that’s ok…

              This site needs commentators like CV…but his recent bans had a sense of inevitability about them…

              You’ve put the knife in the back…that’s unnecessary…

              And I’ve now been moderated for calling it out…

          • weka 3.1.1.1.2

            mod note for you.

            • One Two 3.1.1.1.2.1

              I acknowledge the mod note weka…

              Putting the boot into someone who can’t defend themselves is low level…

              It’s not having a go…it’s callow…

              [you’re out until Monday. You’ve been moderated before for arguing with moderators. Read the Policy esp the bit about wasting moderator’s time – weka]

        • Incognito 3.1.1.2

          Disagree strongly with your view! He was a marked man, a dead man walking IMO. On the one hand he has got so much to offer but he squanders it IMO. On the other hand he directly, but mostly indirectly IMHO, creates a huge and unacceptable workload for the Moderators here. A catch-22?

    • joe90 3.2

      I’d like to ask that he does not receive a year ban.

      Yeah, me as well, adam.

      @ RL – twelve months for putting the needle in, really?

      • In Vino 3.2.1

        I too feel that Psycho Milt has received an unduly harsh deal: I occasionally quibble with PM, but I see him as one of the more worthwhile commenters here.
        I accept moderators’ judgements on CV, but do not see PM that way.

  4. Robert Guyton 4

    Adam – would you be willing to trade places with Psycho Milt – take on his ban in order to have him re-instated here? That’d be noble!

    • Stunned Mullet 4.1

      Good idea – I’d be happy to do that Robert.

    • fender 4.2

      Great idea Robert!

      If this were open to anyone, I propose that I take a 2 year ban if both Psycho Milt and Colonial Viper are reinstated.

      small print: if either of them receives a subsequent ban in the 2 year period then I’m allowed to comment again 😀

      edit: An earlier comment I made on OM may make me unable to trade 😆

      • mauī 4.2.1

        I am also happy to take CV’s 1 year ban for him. I realise some sections of the left finds his views unpalatable, but many of his counter views I think are critical in what is a rapidly changing world with the breakdown of traditional politics. I can easily envision the commentary flailing around on a topic with people sticking to their tried and true positions and I will think I wonder what CV thinks on this? We need that different perspective on things, even if sometimes we don’t want to hear it and it doesn’t always mesh with our values.

        I remember he was not so long ago assumed to be the most prolific commenter in the Standard history. Removing him is kind of like removing a vital organ in my view.

        • Sacha 4.2.1.1

          When any commenter inflames discussions so reliably they must be an appendix. Surgery time.

        • Muttonbird 4.2.1.2

          That is not a hill you want to die on. CV would be banned again within 24 hours and you would be forgotten which would be a real tragedy.

        • fender 4.2.1.3

          Moderation sunk to a low not seen for quite some time today.
          [deleted] I’m not sure if I have the sequence of events correct though as I wasn’t here when it occurred.

          Two good debaters got silenced in a “that stinks” fashion IMO.

          [you have the sequence wrong. Please don’t start targeting individual moderators in your comments – weka]

        • Carolyn_Nth 4.2.1.4

          most prolific commenter

          And there lies part of the problem. When someone with divisive views dominates the discussion by the sheer amount of their comments, it’s a recipe for anger and escalation of divisions.

          Expressing a different perspective is never a problem. It’s the behaviour around it, or that accompanies it, that can be the problem.

          It can be helpful to respect the whole community and be aware of how much space is being taken up by individuals.

          • mauī 4.2.1.4.1

            Take your point re divisive views, but I mostly find him courteous and respectful in his chats with other commenters. Can’t say the same for some others who seem to relish in jumping down his throat on the first comment he makes here, and then it can become personal, which Cv doesn’t seem to do a great deal. I think some regular trolls who aren’t even trying to honestly debate are treated better by the commentariat than CV is.

            Sure some people dominate conversation, but that’s life and personalities. I remember a previous time where CV got a ban and quite a few infrequent commenters came out and said they wanted him to stay because they enjoyed what he brings.

            If he was actively shutting down other commenters I would agree with you about dominating the space, but like I say he’s respectful of others.

            • Barfly 4.2.1.4.1.1

              I agree

            • Bill 4.2.1.4.1.2

              I agree with your first paragraph.

            • McFlock 4.2.1.4.1.3

              I’m another prolific commenter, and although I don’t know about “polarizing” I suspect at least some people think I’m a bit of a dick.

              And yet I don’t recall ever receiving a ban – certainly been warned more than a few times, but I don’t think the hammer’s ever been dropped on me. It’s probably recorded on the backend somewhere.

              It probably isn’t because mods agree with me. Some disagree with me strongly. But I try to keep my comments relevant and consistent (e.g. if I say ’30 seriously injured’ then I hope I avoid sliding it to ‘saw a doctor’, and instead either back it up or admit the error and correct it).

              But most of all I heed warnings and if I’m on thin ice I either tread carefully or back the hell off. My commenting on Bill’s geopolitical posts has gone down in frequency simply because I don’t believe we disagree in any constructive way, and there’s only one way that’ll end for me. But if I’ve gotten carried away on other posts and the bold font comes out, I read it and take it on board.

              Pretty simple, and it seems to have stood me in good stead, even if I am a dick.

            • veutoviper 4.2.1.4.1.4

              Well said, maui. I agree with all the points you have made.

          • Drowsy M. Kram 4.2.1.4.2

            Good points. The idea of a (very generous) cap on the number of comments (say 15?) by any one person (other than the author, if relevant) on any one page has been floated before.

            By way of feedback (not challenging (because I can’t, which is good), or questioning the moderation), one year is a lengthy ban for PM. Some moderators (e.g. Weka?) have used an ‘escalating ban length’ methodology to educate.

            http://james.grimmelmann.net/files/articles/virtues-of-moderation.pdf

            The problem of ‘scale’ and moderation. A cap on comments might help here too?

            http://culturedigitally.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Gillespie-Governance-ofby-Platforms-PREPRINT.pdf

          • mikes 4.2.1.4.3

            Well I guess someone has to be the most prolific commenter?

            “When someone with divisive views….”

            Somebody’s viewpoint isn’t divisive. Just because someone holds a differing view to your own or a controversial viewpoint doesn’t mean they are being divisive. They can, however, express their viewpoint in a divisive way.

            “it’s a recipe for anger and escalation of divisions…”

            No it’s not. How you react to someone’s viewpoint is what can lead to anger and escalation of divisions.

            “It can be helpful to respect the whole community…”

            Helpful to who? Those with differing viewpoints? You can’t respect people you know nothing about in the real world.

  5. Incognito 5

    Listening to classic rock of the 60s and 70s while browsing through TS and sipping my mint tea. Today was the autumnal equinox. Life is good 🙂

Recent Comments

Recent Posts