Feeding the Trolls

57 Comments

Posted by: Shane Greer on January 30th, 2008

Quite a while ago I wrote a piece (not on this blog) about sexism on the blogosphere. In it I highlighted the willingness of male blog readers to attack a female blogger for her sex rather than what she’s actually said. Essentially attacking the person rather than the substance.

Anyway, there’s another related phenomenon on the blogosphere that I’ve been pondering recently; psycho readers.

Well, basically they’re readers who, well, hate the blogger, for no real reason. I for example have a Pastor who, well, doesn’t love me as his neighbour. Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes have the obviously unbalanced Tim Ireland. Rachael North has the utterly crazy Felicity Lowde. And there are more like them sprinkled across the blogosphere.

But why does this happen? What is it that provokes some people to such hatred? I don’t know, but it certainly makes the blogosphere an interesting place. It takes all sorts I guess.

57 Responses to Feeding the Trolls

Posted by Leon on February 1st, 2008 at 7:37 pm:

Shane, I would seriously go and actually do some reading on this rather than post idiotic things like:

basically they’re readers who, well, hate the blogger, for no real reason. Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes have the obviously unbalanced Tim Ireland"

Also isn’t that some kind of libel calling him unbalanced? You’re lucky he isn’t that BNP loving twunt Paul Staines….

Posted by Jonathan M on February 1st, 2008 at 8:11 pm:

“Obviously unbalanced”? My my… you ARE a lovely man aren’t you?

Posted by Austin Lane on February 1st, 2008 at 11:28 pm:

From what I can see, Ireland has some legitimate issues with what Dale and Fawkes are doing in the blogosphere. He is a little obsessive in the way he pursues his cases, with an attention to detail which may lead some to characterise/smear him as in some way "unhinged", but I reckon this pisspoor post is really an attempt by Greer to smear someone whose politics he doesn’t much like.

The attempt to smear him by association with the cyberstalker Lowde is pretty low for a blog which purports to be respectable.

Ireland himself provokes strong and sometimes unpalatable reactions on the blogs he contributes to, and has on several occasions criticised the moderation policies which allow fairly cheap and crude abuse to be thrown at him. To suggest that Ireland is in some way "unhinged" without commenting on the various anonymous potty-mouth crazies who track his comments round the blogosphhere is, to put it charitably, a bit one-eyed.

The same crap doesn’t appear on Ireland’s blog, because he requires TypePad registration and doesn’t allow anonymous trolls.

Fair comment, Shane? Perhaps you’ll let us know. Is the animus against Ireland some kind of Ocker inwardness?

Posted by Austin Lane on February 1st, 2008 at 11:35 pm:

. . . it’s clearly not any sort of Aussie thing. Ireland appears to be engaged in intensive legal discussions with a Mr Donal Blaney, who (if this website is to be believed) is a close friend and business associate of Shane Greer, and is also some sort of lawyer.

Posted by jailhouselawyer on February 2nd, 2008 at 12:02 am:

"Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes have the obviously unbalanced Tim Ireland".
Congratulations on gaining your psychiatric qualifications. The quack springs to mind.

Posted by septicisle on February 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 am:

I don’t know, what is it that drives normal bloggers to claim that others are mentally deranged? Perhaps they’re psychiatrists on their lunch hour, or maybe they’re just being derogatory for no real reason.

Posted by Tim Ireland on February 2nd, 2008 at 10:07 am:

[3rd attempt at posting this comment. I seriously hope your migration to WordPress is the only reason previous efforts have failed and/or been deleted.]

I’m dreadfully sorry, but in the case of Iain Dale and Paul Staines, my concern is not with who they are, but what they do, and I’ll thank you to stop suggesting otherwise.

I’ve proved time and again that these two seek to deceive their readers in a myriad of ways. I’ve shown it in ‘long and boring’ posts that they would prefer people didn’t read. I have also shown it by producing multiple links to their websites that they would rather people didn’t follow.

The response is normally abuse, threats… or their playing the victim when these initial tactics fail.

Their crying ’stalker’ any time someone subjects them to anywhere *near* the scrutiny they regularly subject others to does little to help the true victims of stalking. It’s an incredibly cheap and nasty tactic. Shame on you for believing/peddling this line.

Oh, and the charming way that you group me with a convicted stalker is the icing on the cake. (But let’s not forget that I’m the nasty person that’s blinded by hatred.)

They are unapologetic serial offenders. I am patient and persistent* enough to want to take that on.

(*Both used to applaud me for this quality, BTW.)

Posted by mikerouse on February 2nd, 2008 at 10:24 am:

Tim,

I am the one moving the blog from Drupal to WordPress and have seen the comments on the Drupal blog - the first one was published following the usual moderation and the repeated attempt was published also.

Then, I moved the site over, but the posts and comments are yet to follow in their entirity. It’s something I am working on, but am yet to get the SQL script right to successfull port everything over en masse.

I can only apologise for this and assure you that there is no attempt on anybody’s part to remove any of your comments. I hope you understand.

Mike

PS: If you’ve linked to the above post you might have to update the URL to reflect the change in permalink structure. Again, apologies for this.

Posted by Tim Ireland on February 2nd, 2008 at 10:46 am:

Thank you, Mike. I suspected that was the case and said so over on my blog. Will update again to let folks know comments are now being published.

Posted by dizzy on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:27 pm:

Tim…. would you like a Dime bar?

Posted by ourman on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pm:

A quite disgusting post as regards your comments about Tim Ireland. I continue to welcome his posts and his investigations. As a blogger he has contributed more to the political blogosphere and debate more than you ever will.

Posted by mike on February 2nd, 2008 at 7:43 pm:

It’s funny how brave bloggers are when sitting in front of their computers. You say a fellow is “obviously unbalanced”, would you have said that to him in the pub, when sober ?

Posted by Carl Eve on February 3rd, 2008 at 10:53 am:

Shane - it’s “attack a female blogger for her gender” not for her “sex”.

Small point, but worth noting. Regardless, I don’t think people criticised laides like Nadine for her naughty bits. They did it because she came out with such claptrap.
And comparing Tim to Felicity is monstrous. Felicity was convicted in a court of law as a stalker. Tim has not - to my knowledge - even been cautioned or spoken to by police for any such matter.
Why do non-bloggers like myself have issues with blogger like yourself?
I think, from the inane twitterings you’ve just posted, you’ve just explained it…

Posted by Gareth Davies on February 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 pm:

Is there any excuse for this abuse masquerading as commentary? Tim ireland is not insane, or mad, or even unbalanced. He believes in what he’s doing, and he will pursue it beyond the point where other’s would give up, but that’s only evidence of a willingness to pursue things he believes in.

How do I know? I’ve been on the receiving end.

I’ve aalso been on the receiving end of Guido’s abuse whenever he doesn’t like something I’ve said. I know who I’d rather share a lift with, and who I’d like to be stuck on a desert island with, and it isn’t Guido..

Posted by Tim Ireland on February 4th, 2008 at 12:09 pm:

Shane, you’ve described me as “obviously unbalanced” and grouped me with a convicted stalker.

I can assure you that currently no official paperwork exists classifying me as either unbalanced or as a confirmed stalker.

You’ve had a few days for your new blog to settle and have posted two new articles since I made my primary comment regarding this (above). Is there any chance you could address that comment sometime today?

Otherwise, I might be forced to press you further* for a response.

[*Hint: It is my doing this that prompts some right-wing bloggers to claim I am a stalker and/or in some way obsessive. And it often begins in this way. Someone claims/does something that is totally out of order, resists every reasonable attempt to challenge their position, and then screams ‘harassment’ when I continue beyond the point where they expect me to give up and go away.]

Posted by Praguetory on February 5th, 2008 at 10:02 am:

Tim Ireland is an off the wall obsessive whose arguments start with a conclusion (that fits with his moronic worldview) and works backwards. Whilst one of the great strengths of the internet is that like-minded individuals can seek each other out, Tim and his tiny group of cheerleaders demonstrate the downsides of this phenomenon. If you went back a few years, Tim would struggle to find anyone else to indulge his paranoia.

Posted by Mutley on February 5th, 2008 at 12:19 pm:

May I take up a groundless hatred of you as a sort of new hobby Mr Greer? Obviously I dont really hate you - but I could pretend to!

Posted by Tim Ireland on February 5th, 2008 at 2:54 pm:

*sigh*

Shane, you still haven’t responded. (Or perhaps you have, by allowing Praguetory’s smears through.)

Posted by TPBiM on February 6th, 2008 at 6:35 am:

I fear you’ve all been take in by Mr. Greer’s god-like satirical talent. Here he is writing a post called “Feeding the Trolls”, in which he blatantly trolls Tim Ireland (not just calling him unbalanced, but tacitly comparing him to Lowde - I feel a new Godwin developing). You duly reply to Greer, thus, almost literally, feeding the troll.

Posted by Tim Ireland on February 6th, 2008 at 10:05 am:

Still no response. Fine, have it your way:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2008/02/shane_greer.asp

Posted by Shane Greer on February 6th, 2008 at 11:55 am:

Apologies for the delayed response, just up after the Super Tuesday party. My characterisation of you in the post was based on how I perceived your pursuit of bloggers you disagree with for reasons I don’t understand.

The only complaint you seem to have (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is to do with Iain Dale and Guido Fawke’s comment moderation. Surely though it’s up to the individual blogger how they deal with comments?

If I have missed the thrust of your complaint then please correct me.

Posted by Shane Greer on February 6th, 2008 at 11:59 am:

Just noticed your post about my lack of response. Hmm, last night you left a comment saying that I could respond after the Super Tuesday watch party (which would have meant my responding this morning).

You put your post up just before 10am UK time, which would be 5am EST. Oddly enough I wasn’t up at that point.

Posted by Tim Ireland: An Internet Bully? on February 6th, 2008 at 12:22 pm:

[…] libel), he has woven them all into a narrative of persecution by these right-wing bloggers. When Shane Greer posted about "feeding the trolls", he mentioned Tim Ireland as an obsessed Iain Dale and Paul Staines follower, and characterised […]

Posted by Tim Ireland on February 6th, 2008 at 1:34 pm:

“Surely though it’s up to the individual blogger how they deal with comments?”

To an extent*. But Iain Dale banned me from his website for insisting that he follow his own clearly stated rules. He then went on the lie about that, claiming that I had been banned for insisting that he follow my rules.

(*Iain dale also sets a very bad example. Not a good thing to do when gallivanting about town as the poster child for political blogging. There are also issues of trust that damage us all when key bloggers manipulate/delete comments in a way that suggest that they have never been challenged over one point or another.)

If I made any offer for you to continue to enjoy your drinkies and post multiple entries about that while you left me hanging for days (and I don’t see one here) then I can assure you that sarcasm was involved.

Now, let’s get to the meat of it:

You did not merely express an opinion, you billed me as a ‘psycho reader’, dismissed every concern I might have about conduct in the blogosphere as an invention of a hate-filled mind, declared me to be “obviously unbalanced” and grouped me with a convicted stalker.

To defend this action of yours, you will need to produce evidence beyond your perception of the situation.

Important question coming up…

Can you do this?

(And, if you don’t mind me saying so, if - by your own admission - you fail to understand a situation, you might want to be more careful when you express an opinion about it.)

Posted by Confused of S. Yorks on February 6th, 2008 at 2:13 pm:

Shane, so someone is unbalanced simply because you don’t understand their motivations? In fact not merely unbalanced, but worthy of inclusion in the same company as a convicted stalker. And this is okay?

At the same time you admit to not necessarily having a good handle on Tim’s issue with the bloggers concerned.

Interesting that another Tory contributer to this thread (Praguetory) also resorts to personal abuse in preference to reasoned argument. Can we draw the conclusion from this that most Tory bloggers prefer hurling abuse to discussing issues; that an online s**tstorm is infinitely preferable to coherent debate. Certainly a quick glance at the comments threads on the blogs of both Paul Staines and Iain Dale would support such a hypothesis.

Posted by DonaldS on February 6th, 2008 at 4:07 pm:

Wow, so you thought it okay to label someone a “psycho reader” and “unbalanced”, and to compare them with a convicted stalker, for reasons that by your own admission you “don’t understand”, and haven’t really looked into. When quite reasonably asked for an elaboration by several commenters here, you didn’t see fit to reply for a week, despite the fact that you’ve posted almost every day since. Except, of course, you did reply, because you allowed a rather strident comment by Dominic (who posts as ‘Praguetory’) to pass unremarked upon, unmoderated. Now, I’m sure Dominic is a fine, upstanding chap, but by your own admission you can have no real idea whether what he’s writing has any basis in truth or is just an idle smear.

Are you least credible commentator on t’Internet?

Posted by Jono on February 6th, 2008 at 11:00 pm:

Where do you get the idea Blaney is a tax lawyer from? His law firm website says he is a litigator.

Posted by Tim Ireland on February 6th, 2008 at 11:46 pm:

When you’re ready, Shane. No rush*.

[*Note - this might be sarcasm.]

Posted by Shane Greer on February 7th, 2008 at 11:28 am:

Hi Tim,

There seems little point in continuing this (not least because I have other things to do with my time). Obviously we disagree over the nature of your action toward those who disagree with you and the impression it creates.

Posted by Praguetory on February 7th, 2008 at 12:10 pm:

Here’s some evidence to support my assertions all on one thread.

http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/?p=1853

At a slight tangent, why does someone who claims not to have libelled anyone need ’supporters’? A boost to his self-esteem perhaps?

Posted by Tim Ireland on February 7th, 2008 at 2:28 pm:

To defend this action of yours, you will need to produce evidence beyond your perception of the situation.

Important question coming up… please answer it this time:

Can you do this?

Posted by Tim Ireland on February 8th, 2008 at 8:50 am:

Shane, at the risk of repeating myself (again):

To defend this action of yours, you will need to produce evidence beyond your perception of the situation.

Important question coming up (again)

CAN YOU DO THIS?

Posted by dizzy on February 8th, 2008 at 1:37 pm:

Welcome to Jeopardy! First answer.

Who is someone that posts under the name “manic” online and displays mood swings in that online persona consistent with the name manic being akin to bi-polar episodes and then wonders why people say he’s a nutter?

Posted by Shane Greer on February 8th, 2008 at 2:42 pm:

Tim,

My assertion that you are unbalanced is based upon the manner in which you pursue people on the internet as it relates to the reason you are pursuing them. This would include your apparent belief that people are obligated to answer your questions, and that they should answer your questions in a time frame of your choosing. It’s clearly not a clinical diagnosis (not least because ‘unbalanced’ is not a clinical term). In short my evidence is your conduct, and as I was not making a clinical assertion that evidence and the impression created by it is a matter of individual judgement.

Anyway, I bite: what conduct is it on the blogosphere that concerns you? Additionally (and perhaps it’s related) why do you believe, if indeed you do, that people are obligated to respond to questions you pose?

Posted by Tim Ireland on February 8th, 2008 at 3:19 pm:

I think it should be clear to any reasonable person that what you published was totally uncalled-for and well out of order. I am therefore well within my rights to pursue a timely reply… and it took you days to respond, even though you were happily blogging on other matters at the time.

And I’ll answer your question when you answer mine:

To defend this action of yours, you will need to produce evidence beyond your perception of the situation.

Important question coming up (for the 4th time)

CAN YOU DO THIS?

Yes or no?

Posted by Carl Eve on February 8th, 2008 at 3:23 pm:

Shane? Could you post up your Psychology diploma please?

Ta…

Ah… same place Dizzy bought his then…

(”dizzy” - what happens when you go around and around and around in circles until you feel nauseous and confused. I like this game of Jeopardy. Can we play again?)

Posted by Shane Greer on February 8th, 2008 at 3:32 pm:

I have indicated what my evidence is. The point is that my assertion was one of perception. There is therefore no evidence, and no need for evidence beyond such perception.

Posted by Tim Ireland on February 8th, 2008 at 3:38 pm:

So you expressed your non-professional opinion based on my response to your calling me a psycho? I think I might spot a slight flaw in your logic there.

And your answer to the question “Can you produce evidence beyond your perception of the situation?” is… “No.”?

Just for the record, you understand…

Posted by Shane Greer on February 8th, 2008 at 3:57 pm:

No, I expressed a non-professional (in the clinical sense) opinion based on your pursuit of other people.

My assertion was based on my perception of the aforementioned pursuit. There is therefore no evidence, and no need for evidence beyond such perception.

As mentioned before though, I bite: what conduct is it on the blogosphere that concerns you?

Posted by dizzy on February 8th, 2008 at 4:28 pm:

Carl, ever heard of taking the piss? That is what I always do with Tim because it’s the best way to be with him and his manic episodes. Laughing at the head case is fun. I do it when I look in the mirror every morning. In real life Tim may not be a loon. On the Internet “manic” is… well the clue is in his choice of handle really isn’t it? Plus the way he cries like a girl and scream the word smear at people. Funny though he rarely does it at me and I presume it’s because he knows that I will just laugh at him and tell him to bugger off.

Posted by Carl Eve on February 8th, 2008 at 4:29 pm:

“No need for evidence beyond such perception”….

You do realise you’ve basically explained the rules of the primary school playground?

“you’re a big poo, because I say you are”

Do you stamp your feet and hold your breath if you don’t get what you want Veruca?

Shane, I perceive you to be a pernicious nitwit with platypus-fondling proclivities…

Posted by Tim Ireland on February 8th, 2008 at 4:40 pm:

[ignores the trolling ‘dizzy’]

“what conduct is it on the blogosphere that concerns you?”

Oh, all sorts of things from your neck of the woods. Like, for instance, making a claim that cannot be substantiated, resisting any reasonable efforts to challenge that claim, and then screaming ’stalker’ when encountering someone who refuses to succumb to evasive tactics. Like this one.

Now, getting back to the matter at hand…

If you took the time to look at my pursuit of ~~people~~ answers and accountability from those who abuse trust and abuse power, instead of basing your perception on what you may or may not read on the websites of your Tory chums (i.e. people with a track record of keeping that evidence from their readers), then perhaps your perception of the situation would be improved. After all, in an earlier comment here you admit to not understanding the situation

So even if your defence is that you have merely expressed an opinion based on perception, it won’t hold any water because you are - by your own admission - operating with limited perception .

(Perhaps this is how you arrived at the conclusion that I pursue people “for no real reason”.)

Not that this defence holds any water in the first place.

You smeared me, Greer, and I suspect it was done tactically and with malice.

But of course it would be proof of your claims if I were in any way upset by that*.

(*sarcasm alert)

Posted by Shane Greer on February 8th, 2008 at 5:18 pm:

Ok Tim, enlighten me. Is it your contention that there’s a wider code that bloggers should follow when acting in their capacity as such?

Posted by Tim Ireland on February 8th, 2008 at 5:24 pm:

How is that in any way relevant to the central topic?

Posted by Shane Greer on February 8th, 2008 at 6:27 pm:

If the central topic relates to perception then it’s very relevant. I’m simply trying to understand your motivation in pursuing people. My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that you believe there is some manner (or ‘code’ for want of a better word) in which bloggers should behave. Hence my question; is it your contention that there’s a wider code that bloggers should follow when acting in their capacity as such?

Posted by Carl Eve on February 8th, 2008 at 6:30 pm:

Dizzy… ‘heard of taking the piss?’

“Mate, I’m giving it away”… (David Thewlis, Naked, 1993)

I thank yew.

(anyway, you’re the one who call’s y’self dizzy, not me)

Posted by Iain Dale on February 8th, 2008 at 6:38 pm:

Shane, you’re on a loser here. Entering into anyform of dialogue with the manic Manic just encourages him. Manic by name, manic by nature. There are other words for it, of course, but not being a medic, I am not qualified to determine what they might be.

Dizzy has the right approach. As usual.

Now he will get off on wondering if it is really me writing this, which will spark off a whole series of further questions he DEMANDS I answer. Fat chance.

Posted by dizzy on February 9th, 2008 at 6:37 am:

Oh my what delicious irony have we here! We have a person who regularly posts conjectured innuendo on his website as if it were factual reality (some might even call it ‘lies’) complaining about others posting unsubstantiated things on their websites. Next he’ll be bombarding people by email - or encouraging others to do the same - demanding the removal of personal attacks or asking meaningless questions about whether someone called John that posted on a blog is the same John as that other John in the world Johns. These are important questions don’t you know? Listen to me! Look at me! *waves* Can’t you see me? I’M HERE PAY ME SOME ATTENTION MUMMY!

TO be fair it’s beyond satire really. What will it be next? Telephoning someone up and asking them why they haven’t published a comment posted at 2am? After all, the Internet sits in part on the telephony network. It’s only natural that the next step would be to use a telephone to make such demands wouldn’t it? All driven of course by the basic assumption that anyone other than a small niche group of people is actually paying attention, which of course, they’re not.

Posted by dizzy on February 9th, 2008 at 6:45 am:

Carl, is your comment meant to suggest that you somehow “beat” me? I mean, come off it, you’re the one that threw out the ad verecundiam fallacy so you started from a crap premise in the first place. However, it is true that I take the piss out of Tim, it’s just sooooo easy to do. Brilliantly he’s written me off as a troll too which means I can have even more fun when he has one of those episodes where he loses the football pitch and is left with just a corner flag.

Posted by Tim Ireland on February 9th, 2008 at 9:39 am:

Fair enough, ‘Iain’. Any time anyone posts something outrageous in the name of Iain Dale, I’ll just assume it’s from (ahem) TV’s Iain Dale.

(Obviously you’ve never been up against a sock-puppeting time-wasting fool like Dizzy.)

Shane, you should have struggled to understand my position before you posted this item. Too late now. Unless you’d care to retract, apologise, and start again…?

We appear to be operating under playground rules here, so a do-over might be possible.

Posted by DonaldS on February 9th, 2008 at 11:19 am:

>Is it your contention that there’s a wider code that bloggers should follow

I can’t speak for Tim, but it certainly is mine. It’s not exactly Stalinist to expect blogs and bloggers to conduct themselves with honesty, decency and transparency, is it? “My house, my rules” is a copout - it so banale it goes without saying, but one’s behaviour is still liable to judgement on its merits. It wasn’t so long ago that we ran a group site where 2 David Davis supporters and an SWP activist wrote regularly. Debate remained civil, if occasionally a bit tasty, simply by playing the ball and not the man. Your original post here didn’t.

It’s Tim’s contention, I think, that the relatively recent arrival of Iain et al. has poisoned what was once a medium for honest political debate (one that produced TheyWorkForYou, PledgeBank, WriteToThem, etc.). I’m not sure I agree that it’s “Iain” or “Tories” that are to blame; I’d describe it more as the inevitable product of a once-interesting medium meets the professional political class. As this tool amply demonstrated. It’s sad.

Posted by Shane Greer on February 9th, 2008 at 2:44 pm:

Donald, thanks for that. I agree it’s not Stalinist to expect bloggers to conduct themselves with honesty etc, but that’s not the same as an obligation surely? Shouldn’t the market determine how bloggers behave; for example if a particular group of readers enjoy the blog of somebody who does not behave with honesty what’s the problem? If another group expect the highest standards of honesty etc and enjoy a blog that meets their requirements what’s the problem. Either way the consumer gets what they want.

It strikes me the blogosphere, like the internet itself, is a constantly evolving entity. What it was at its inception is not what it is now, and what it is now is not what it will be in the future. Indeed who’s to say it is specifically a medium for honest political debate? Many blogs a vehicles of self-promotion, others exist to promote particular ideas or philosophies, others exist simply to outrage people (the Ann Coulters of the blogosphere), and others exist as mediums for honest political debate.

Ultimately, shouldn’t the market determine how blogs evolve?

Tim, if I have struggled to understand your position, or at least the totality of your position, it is not for want of trying. You seem to think you possess a position of control. You ‘might’ be prepared to agree to a ‘do-over’. It’s ‘too late’ unless I do what you want. Last time I checked I wasn’t under contract. You have failed to answer a simple question (despite agreement otherwise) after I obliged in answering yours. It would seem entering into a diaglogue is indeed a waste of time; what a shame.

Posted by Shane Greer on February 9th, 2008 at 6:45 pm:

Should have mentioned Tim, you’ve been B… B… B… B… BANNED. Bye bye, hugs. x

P.S. My reason, I just can’t be arsed.

Posted by DonaldS on February 10th, 2008 at 10:42 am:

>Shouldn’t the market determine how bloggers behave

Absolutely agree; but to say the obligations of those who run (or in my case, used to run) ‘popular’ blogs ends there is a bit unambitious, no? I don’t expect that the *only* reason Tesco don’t poison me when I shop there is because I’ll sue them and shop elsewhere. Human beings aren’t like that - whatever the site (self-promotion, tittle-tattle, serious debate, whatever), we expect our host to operate with honesty, transparency, integrity etc. (and a bit of tribalism, too, obviously). Of course, given perfect market conditions, the shysters would soon be weeded out. But markets fail - people don’t have time to sink into working out who said what when on every point, information is imperfect, asymmetric, and so on. There are genuine externalities at work: the behaviour of promiment bloggers reflects on the rest. A bit like premiership footballers. And so on.

It’s especially sad because these rules were largely followed by everyone, from Trots to right-libertarians (not known for their collectivist impulses), for a long time. Not perfectly, but there has been a marked decline; more sock-puppetry, less honesty in debate, more exploitation of the fact that the less clued-in can easily be manipulated (a smear sticks whatever the truth), etc.

Posted by dizzy on February 10th, 2008 at 7:21 pm:

Oh bless him, he’s so cute when he makes his wild loopy accusations that follow the logic of “someone did something once, therefore all occurrences of unknown anonymous posting could, and probably are that someone and I will keep writing it because I am a man with a megaphone and someone must listen to me oh yes oh yes!”. But he’s not mental you understand. Nor is he paranoid. And he’s definitely _not_ a conspiracy theorist! Oh no. If you said that that would be a tactical and malicious smear don’t you know!

Please note the use of the word “tactical” is in no way linked to conspiratorial Machiavellian action. Any possible link is purely coincidental. Please also note that Dizzy, who regularly and quite openly rips the proverbial piss out of Tim Ireland is in fact afraid to do it on the record and all posts that seem to support Iain Dale and ’smear’ Tim Ireland must in fact be being made by Dizzy in disguise because he doesn’t have the balls to call Tim a loony openly.

This episode of Dizzame Street was brought to you by the letter P.

Posted by Shane Greer on February 10th, 2008 at 8:02 pm:

Interesting points Donald, and I quite agree that the blogosphere does at times fall far below the standards which one might consider perfect. I guess, and correct me if I’m wrong, you’re talking about the need for something akin to the journalistic code of ethics? If so it’s certainly an interesting idea and one I’m not against in principle.

However I wonder about the practicality of enforcing such a code (which would have to be voluntary). Who would get to determine the content of the code, and perhaps more importantly adjudicate possible breaches of the code?

In a related aside I’ve heard a few bloggers mention rules that one time existed and were generally followed, but I have yet to see any codification of these rules. Is there an exhaustive list of rules somewhere or are they more a set of unspoken, but commonly understood customs?

Posted by Carl Eve on February 11th, 2008 at 4:02 pm:

Dizzy
No, I was just having a laugh - indeed, I too was taking the piss.

But I thought the line from Naked funnier.

Clearly, you did not. Never mind. I’m not much surprised.

(and no, my suggestion was not that I “beat” you. I don’t even know where you get that idea from. That’s not my thing Diz. But if you do have that diploma, do post it - assuming that was the “crap premise” I started at. You talking such gobbledygook here it’s hard to know what you’re on about. Speak plain English, eh? Cheers)

Shane Greer