A timely reminder about commenting standards

The rise of bullying political discourse requires us to tighten our standards for those who want to use our comment facility. We will be less tolerant of intolerance

11th Nov 16, 11:57am by David Chaston

By David Chaston

The rise of Trump and the permission his bullying style and behaviour gives to his supporters will likely change the way public debate is had, even in New Zealand.

The promotion of fact-less shouting, misogyny and authoritarianism is not a good thing.

And it will not be tolerated here in our comment stream.

We will be applying a stricter standard requiring commenters to stay on the subject of the story, not insult others, and make a reasoned argument.

The rise of the internet and development of social media means many people are now consuming news from partisan sources that reinforce their existing biases. We at interest.co.nz do not want this website to be part of that. We believe we can best serve our readership, and the country heading into an election year, by providing a site and service that offers a rigorous contest of economic and public policy ideas.

But using Trump-style tactics here is not acceptable. There are other websites where comments like that will be accepted. Go there to hector and bully, if you must.

We want to encourage discussion that is respectful of other viewpoints, is reasoned and open for discussion. So if you wish to debate the reasons for Trump's victory, or his actual policies, you're welcome to do so. Just do so in a reasoned, non-bullying, non-drive-by-smear way.

In the past few days we have been very tolerant of some very dodgy comments, which ultimately only come from a small percentage of our overall readership. But taking a firmer stand against the simply unacceptable does means some of our commenters will disappear. Some will choose that on their own, claiming 'censorship'. That is their right, but it will be a false claim.

Others will have their commenting privileges terminated. The reasons will be communicated privately by email.

We are seeing the infection of strong-arm political tactics in many democratic countries. We are not going to be part of this rise in New Zealand.

Vigorous debate here is still fine. But we will be less tolerant of intolerance.

I am sure you understand.

(If you wish, you can contact me directly at david.chaston@interest.co.nz )

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

141 Comments

by sadr001 | 11th Nov 16, 12:29pm 1478820584

What are the odds that you'all offer the ability to include superscript and footnotes so that citing sources is made easier and more the norm?

by dictator | 11th Nov 16, 12:36pm 1478820993

People can add links easily. I'd rather not have to post in wikipedia format or a Harvard style, that would be an unnecessary distraction.

by dictator | 11th Nov 16, 12:33pm 1478820838

Clear guidelines with appropriate moderation leads to a higher quality of posts. There are forums with severe but fair moderation and those thread stay on topic.

Trump's tactics are not new and were quite commonly used by Trotsky and his supporters. Let's not stoop to that level of shouting unpopular opinions down.

by Ron Pol | 11th Nov 16, 1:02pm 1478822548

Good for you David & Co. Vigorous, reasoned, thoughtful debate, tolerant and respectful of divergent views. Would be nice to see it more widely practiced...

by scarfie | 11th Nov 16, 1:10pm 1478823004

You could say David, that when someone resorts to a fallacy of argument they have already lost. They resort to their fallacy because they don't have a valid argument. The problem is they just don't realise it they have lost. Personally I have learnt that when fallacy enters the debate there is little use in continuing any further, you can't debate with someone that is prepared to resort to being unreasonable rather than rational. At least when you debate with facts the discussion become more about the veracity of those facts rather than the person presenting them.

The thing is those unreasonable people vote and make financial decisions.....

Personally I preferred when we were notified of a response to our comments, but I understand that it let unreasonableness fester and grow.

by scarfie | 11th Nov 16, 1:10pm 1478823034

We have just seen an entire election fought on playing the man rather than the ball. Personally I have found little room to comment on such a sad state of affairs. Now we are seeing unreasonable people govern us.

by profile | 11th Nov 16, 1:40pm 1478824831

[ Knock it off, that is personal. Stick to ideas. Ed ]

by profile | 11th Nov 16, 2:10pm 1478826643

Ok, can't highlight hypocrisy, will remember that in future. I assume the scond sentence wasn't personal.

The poor old left had demonised Bush, McCain and Romney so much when it came to Trump the punters had heard it all before ad nauseum so it lacked the desired effect.

by scarfie | 11th Nov 16, 3:23pm 1478830989

My comment was meant to be apolitical. My mistake, I should have perhaps said "person" instead of man so that you could understand.

by profile | 12th Nov 16, 3:20pm 1478917225

You just reinforced my point. You can't help yourself. Apolitical or not it is still hypocritical.

by Zachary Smith | 11th Nov 16, 1:17pm 1478823474

I may be biased but it has always seemed to me that it was those on the Right here that had to endure the most bullying. Generally a conservative thinker has had to choose his words very carefully to negotiate the minefield of political correctness and appeals to ban someone have generally come from the Left field. In the pre Trump era the Right has been something of an underdog, I'd even suggest they play the role of freedom fighter. Now things have become a little more balanced with the rather sudden emergence of a militant and conservative voice that actually had the power to shake the foundations of the world we can actually get down to having rational debates. I believe it was the nasty suppression of conservative values that led to a backlash resulting in Brexit and the Trump Presidency.

by David Chaston | 11th Nov 16, 1:24pm 1478823892

I agree. That view is pretty biased.

by Chris_J | 12th Nov 16, 10:42pm 1478943775

David, I can empathise with your anger, but the first paragraph in your article above, your reply to comments here and below really stretch any concept of impartiality.

There is no doubt Donald Trump as a man has his flaws, as we all do, but I do not doubt that his intentions are sincere and honest. Insinuating that he is a bully or worse is unfair, he appears to me to be a good man who has raised a strong family and been a successful businessman during troubling times. He is level headed and (relatively) rational and as far as I'm concerned World War 3 (America vs Russia) was just narrowly avoided - so I am thankful for his election.

Acting as an alarmist, raising fear and concern where it is unfounded is a pretty awful thing to do to people (especially to the young and impressionable), yet that is what the mainstream media has been and is doing.

I caught the end of Bernard Hickey's post election commentary on Duncan Garner's show yesterday and was pretty horrified at his comments, Duncan's on air comments after Bernard went off air summed it up well. I hope both he and you heard what Duncan said, and you both realise how these sorts of rants may be viewed.

I know you have quite a different viewpoint to mine, but keeping fairness and impartiality in what is supposed to be "reporting" of news should be the paramount function of the media.

Influence should not be purported as news reporting: that is propaganda and that will never lead to anything good.

That is some free advice, don't just dismiss it!! It's good advice, please take it!!

by dictator | 11th Nov 16, 1:35pm 1478824547

The right is not an underdog at all, except in social media. Social media is not currently an accurate representation of the opinions of the entire population, however that will transform over the next 30-50 years.

The following link is about what you are talking about especially when it comes to country versus city. Some language may not be work safe.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-abo…

by Zachary Smith | 11th Nov 16, 1:42pm 1478824922

It depends how you define the Right. Something like the National party is more Centrist, even Centre-Left. NZ First could surely be described as an underdog.
Conservative views in academia and entertainment are absolutely suppressed so it goes beyond just social media as you are suggesting.

by Noncents | 11th Nov 16, 3:37pm 1478831871

I followed the US election more closely than any other. I read a lot of history as a result.

I don't think left v right are easily defined as based on today's values. Republicans would be Left, and Democrats would be right.

I have my own theory about how they swapped:

The republicans were pro individual rights. Freedom of expression/right to bare arms. In essence they were the embodiment of the constitution and believed every individual should have a chance to prosper on their own.

The conservatism (extremism) seems to have crept in as a direct result of these freedoms - we will not persecute you, therefore you can have those beliefs. Those beliefs became more and more abundant (within the party) until they became its core.

Meanwhile the democrats were a bit more conservative. They believed in the greater good, i.e. the needs of the many outweigh the few. But while that is honorable the average person will always be selfish and want their rights to outweigh the masses, so they moved across to the republicans.

So over time they swapped around until some extremes were reached (globally that is not just the states)

Now the extreme of each side is Fascism and socialism. With the peak being around WWII. i.e. mass genocide events (Stalin and HItler)

After this (and the cold war), each side realised they were wrong so adopted traits from the other. The Left moved towards individual rights, the right moved towards global rights (business and nation), and as a whole policy was quite centrist.

Now we are going back to extremism albeit on the opposite side. The Left are so pro-individual rights that they protest (Riot) every time they lose a democratic election (i.e. Brexit and now Trump). The right are all about the greater good and elimination of individual rights.

They say history repeats. Hopefully we don't have to get to another WW2 event for them to realise the errors of their ways and both gravitate towards the centre again - It seems to be where most of us normal people reside.

by BadRobot | 11th Nov 16, 8:17pm 1478848657

Someone once asked a Danish politician what is the difference between the left and right - he said about ten years. While the remark is flippant it carries a grain of truth. There is no difference between the left and right - they are both just idealistic "heaven on earth" type philosophies that are not achievable and never will be - and I think that scares people.

by scarfie | 11th Nov 16, 1:42pm 1478824956

So rational debate can only happen within a right wing framework? That is incredibly arrogant, probably worse.

"Now things have become a little more balanced with the rather sudden emergence of a militant and conservative voice that actually had the power to shake the foundations of the world we can actually get down to having rational debates."

by Zachary Smith | 11th Nov 16, 1:55pm 1478825758

No, rational debate can only happen when both sides feel they have freedom of expression.

..incredibly arrogant, probably worse.

Are those epithets whizzing by me?

by Zachary Smith | 11th Nov 16, 5:51pm 1478839902

It is interesting that you had such a visceral reaction to what I wrote. I thought it was pretty reasonable. It occurs to me that you interpreted what I wrote as something like the following:

Now that our legions have finished their victory march through the Arc de Triomphe we very much look forward to having a 'rational debate'.

Maybe that's how this world works, where the dominant side always seeks to suppress the weaker one. Maybe both sides simply cannot have freedom of expression.

by BadRobot | 11th Nov 16, 8:18pm 1478848724

Are you advocating a dictatorship?

by Zachary Smith | 11th Nov 16, 9:59pm 1478854769

I would never do that as promoting authoritarianism would break the rules of this fair site. However it is possible I rediscovered something that Plato observed long ago:

Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.

by BadRobot | 11th Nov 16, 11:45pm 1478861124

Ah Plato - don't forget he was writing 2500 years ago - different time, different dynamics, different world view, different beliefs. I think the world has moved on since then. Churchill said

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"

While true, this is very arrogant. Arrogant because it makes that assumption that the left or right have the "correct" answer or solution - I think neither do and I hope one day the world will realize that (oink oink, flap flap).

by Zachary Smith | 12th Nov 16, 12:11am 1478862671

In Plato's Republic I also read this:
...the people who would escape the smoke which is the slavery of freemen, has fallen into the fire which is the tyranny of slaves.
Reminded me of my claim that NZ was the best of all possible worlds. Even so we still need to tolerate a little smoke like David moderating this site.

by BadRobot | 12th Nov 16, 11:57am 1478905025

So you think your views should treated as gospel - not subject to criticism?

by Roelof | 11th Nov 16, 11:36pm 1478860609

I tend to agree with Zach ... the leftish view commentators here seem to be the more passionate ...
I was going to use the word liberal....but liberal means to be more accepting of other views..???

Dont agree with zach on the idea of suppression of conservative values as the reason for Brexit and Trump....
I think more a reaction to wanting the current path to change......

( I sometimes think ideology type labels have a used by date... left/right.... liberal/conservative..etc.
They don't really stand for what they once did, nor have, any longer, a distinctive meaning. ...maybe the latest one is Globalist/Nationalist )

by Zachary Smith | 12th Nov 16, 12:15am 1478862904

Polly Toynbee at the Guardian is calling Brexit and Trump a "whitelash".

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/10/brexit-trump-whit…

Good comments there.

by BS | 12th Nov 16, 1:25pm 1478910342

You're no more biased than this web-site Zachary. Its editorial policy is very much part of the "elite" view that Trump supporters are rebelling against. However, it has a reasonable respect for free speech, and invite different opinions, which in these troubles times is something to salute and celebrate.
If other publications were a bit more tolerant of conservative views and avoided calling working class white males, christians, brexiters and Trump supporters epithets such as xenophobes, rascists and misogynists at every drop of a hat, Hillary might have got the extra couple of percent of voters that would have won her the election.

by profile | 11th Nov 16, 1:20pm 1478823612

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame - who called the result - on Trump tactics.

"Pacing and Leading: Trump always takes the extreme position on matters of safety and security for the country, even if those positions are unconstitutional, impractical, evil, or something that the military would refuse to do. Normal people see this as a dangerous situation. Trained persuaders like me see this as something called pacing and leading. Trump “paces” the public – meaning he matches them in their emotional state, and then some. He does that with his extreme responses on immigration, fighting ISIS, stop-and-frisk, etc. Once Trump has established himself as the biggest bad-ass on the topic, he is free to “lead,” which we see him do by softening his deportation stand, limiting his stop-and-frisk comment to Chicago, reversing his first answer on penalties for abortion, and so on. If you are not trained in persuasion, Trump look scary. If you understand pacing and leading, you might see him as the safest candidate who has ever gotten this close to the presidency. That’s how I see him."

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150919416661/why-i-switched-my-endorsement…

by kiwichas | 11th Nov 16, 4:37pm 1478835444

Have to wait and see what he does; so far it looks like dismantling the EPA and installing his family members.
He could well do most of what he said.

by Kakapo | 11th Nov 16, 5:14pm 1478837642

Wasn't the plan to pretend to avoid conflicts of interest by handing the businesses over to his family members?

by Macadder | 11th Nov 16, 10:58pm 1478858282

I've been following him for over a year, Scott Adams is a pretty intuitive guy and all credit to him predicting a Trump presidential win early in 2015. I do think though, when he eventually switched to being a Trump supporter that he had developed a variation of "Stockholm syndrome."

by Kate | 11th Nov 16, 1:45pm 1478825127

Bullying discourse = dirty politics,.. I mean look at National's campaign ad last election, purely mockery in intent which is a form of bullying. In other words, I don't think Trump started bullying political discourse generally. That said though, I fully support your intent to keep things civil on your own site - good on ya'.

by johnkerikeri | 11th Nov 16, 1:48pm 1478825332

Good on you - as far as I am concerned any opinion that is not reasoned and evidence based is a worthless waste of time. Ad hominin remarks devalue what is (by default perhaps) the most important site for financial news in NZ. There are some really smart commentators who take the time to write up their views - why should they be lost amidst all the dross of semi trolls.

by Zachary Smith | 11th Nov 16, 2:07pm 1478826429

Perhaps some pressure could be alleviated if there was a thumbs down as well as a thumbs up? That way readers could feel they expressed their disapproval without resorting to diatribe.

by Bozeman | 11th Nov 16, 6:55pm 1478843754

by keywest | 12th Nov 16, 2:31am 1478871068

+2 thumbs down would be interesting?

by kermit42 | 11th Nov 16, 2:12pm 1478826737

Great news David. Respect to yourself and the site for being willing to do the extra work to promote a culture of treating others with dignity and respect, even while vigorously disputing their logic or opinions.

by Alter Ego | 11th Nov 16, 2:15pm 1478826908

David, some of your recent comments have gone awry, seemed to have gone into the Large Donald Trump elected section and are not displaying, when I try to link to them..

I do not know whether it is just me, noticing this aberration.

by David Chaston | 11th Nov 16, 3:03pm 1478829818

After 300 comments, it goes to a new page. So you need to click 'next' at the bottom of the comment stream.

by Noncents | 11th Nov 16, 2:32pm 1478827964

I agree with the intent of the comment moderation, a well moderated thread is infinitely more productive, no one wants to see threads degenerating into ugly personal insults.

The thing about equality though, is that is equal. If you want other's to stop behaving badly - then you must also behave.

Bias, insults, and outright offensiveness against any side should be avoided, this includes the Media..

It was primarily the media that made this the most dirty of campaigns. They have demonised Trump (and his supporters) like no other candidate before him, and have continued to do so even after his election.

Did Trump run a dirty campaign? Yes. But so did Clinton (Against Trump, against Sanders, and even against Obama)

Did he make some "deplorable" comments? Yes, but so did Clinton.

Is Trump a Bully? Yes, but so is Clinton.

Yet in this article you only persecute Trump? You are blaming Trump for something that has been part of humanity for millennia.

This article could have been written with no political slant, no bias, and no implication of fault.

It could have been based on facts, logic and reasonable discussion.

It was not. You can only assume it was written to be antagonistic, provocative, and offensive to those who may not share your views.

This article in essence is the very thing you are trying to stop.

by Bozeman | 11th Nov 16, 7:00pm 1478844016

Ah, but you have not addressed the difference in degree between Trump and Clinton. Mr X, who commits murder, and Mr Y, who drives 101 kph, both break the law. Do you tar them with the same brush?

by Noncents | 11th Nov 16, 9:12pm 1478851938

I am comparing one corrupt self serving wannabe president with another. I don't think their differences are as obvious as your example.

by Yankiwi | 13th Nov 16, 5:07am 1478966824

-An interesting example is the outrage from Clinton in regards to a misogynistic sound bite said by Trump about a dozen years ago. This had resounding reverberations in the media. Yet Clinton had an actively misogynistic rapper perform at one of her campaign events. This received zero comment in the media. Am I the only one that sees hypocrisy in this? Both are comparably wrong IMO.

by KH | 11th Nov 16, 2:42pm 1478828543

Excellent article Mr Chaston. I'm happy to go with your judgement when you just cut our some of the bad comments. (even that time you did it to me - choke) But seriously, you do well and you don't have to justify it.
Actually Interest.co has been civilised in comparison. I have been amazed to see on my wife's facebook page and the nasty, aggressive and downright rabid anti Trump comments. Personalised to the extreme, and nothing to do with an argument. And this from people I know who otherwise seem to be 'nice'.

by Noncents | 11th Nov 16, 6:52pm 1478843521

It's ironic.

The pre-election polls appear to have been wrong, primarily because people were too afraid to say they were going to vote for Trump. Even a lot of the exit polls didn't line up.

The rioting, looting, and assault that is going on now. They aren't Trump supporters.

It also is eerily reminiscent of the post brexit protests.

The persecution, small-mindedness, and idiotic behaviour - it's all come from one side - and it's not Trumps.

It appears the Trump fans simply got on with life. They ignored Clinton rallies, they ignored the media, they ignored the polls, they ignored the abuse hurled at them, they ignored the celebrities, and the politicians. They ignored everything, and in the end all they did was Vote.

Some would say the silence was deafening.

by BadRobot | 11th Nov 16, 8:23pm 1478849023

A poll is just a poll - the only one that matters is the one on the day.

by sharetrader | 11th Nov 16, 9:14pm 1478852077

polls are no longer that reliable in the modern social media age, a lot of discussion is now online

an artificial intelligence system designed by a company called Genic.ai that has correctly predicted the winners of the last three U.S. presidential elections was also picking Trump to win.
The AI system, called MoglA, took a look at 20 million data points from social media platforms to come up with the prediction.
According to the analysis from Genic.ai, Trump was more popular than President Barack Obama was during the 2008 campaign – meaning his “engagement” numbers on social media platforms are higher than Obama’s was during the peak of Obama’s first campaign.
According to the story, the candidate with the greatest engagement numbers has won the election every time.

by Justice | 11th Nov 16, 3:00pm 1478829600

The rise of Trump? Trump is not the issue and a sorry excuse now to shutdown debate. As a very long time reader and commenter on this site I've have seen an incessant discourse and snide discount of certain people's views and perspectives from even those who run this site. Unfounded claims of being "conspiracy theorists", assumptions made about where commenters get their info etc etc to dismiss comments not agreed with.
By all means set rules and guidelines, that is your prerogative. But also walk it on a personal level. If this site becomes just another sanitised site to suit a certain narrative then.....

by Chairman Moa | 11th Nov 16, 3:06pm 1478829962

Andrew Little for PM..

I'll leave it at that

by hannah wire | 11th Nov 16, 3:12pm 1478830365

Thank you. I stopped commenting here because I have a female-sounding user name and the sexist abuse was breathtaking. I don't feel safe coming back, and probably never will, because before you moderate it, THIS comment will get abuse. But thank you.

by Kakapo | 11th Nov 16, 3:29pm 1478831367

This is why, way back in 2007 or whenever it was, I deliberately chose a completely neutral name, so that I wouldn't have to bother with that kind of crap. From either direction. Although, it probably invites a political stupid assumption because they're endangered and green.

by Cowpat | 11th Nov 16, 3:42pm 1478832138

Check, check am I still here?

by David Chaston | 11th Nov 16, 3:55pm 1478832941

Pleased you noticed this article.

by Cowpat | 11th Nov 16, 4:27pm 1478834848

With the exception of our beloved Roger have only on very , very rare occasion battled with fellow commentator (on those slow days) , allowing facts not larded of adjective and free of exaggeration to speak for themselves and when found lacking , accept that a cows deposit also requires more substance on occasion.

by AK79 | 11th Nov 16, 3:49pm 1478832553

While I agree with your end goal I disagree with your reasoning on this. First, awful comments have been part of the internet even before the world wide web on the old BBSs. I doubt that Trump was the reason for that. Second, I think if you were to read the comments directed to Trump and his supporters in the last few days you would have to conclude that this is not a one sided issue at all. Let's stop vilifying the other side and and insisting the worse and lets actually learn why others think the way they do.

by offcut2 | 11th Nov 16, 3:50pm 1478832643

Fail; Objectivity of the media in NZ during this entire election cycle. The SJW's all presumed to know best and 'facts' died via a thousand cuts from opinion masquerading as news. Hillary has a deplorable backstory, far worse than even Trump; hence this result. there are no winners...
I drop by occasionally now, but this is a sad site..

by Justice | 11th Nov 16, 3:55pm 1478832926

Ohh, if America has decided to vote in Trump then tough. It's their country to elect who they see fit. Really none of our business at the end of the day. How dare we collectively judge without knowing the actual lives of the people who cast their votes! All this "white male uneducated" bashing blame game is just pathetic! Trump did not become president without the vote of Americans of both sexes and multiple cultures. He won fair and square and now we just have to get on and do the best with the results.

by offcut2 | 11th Nov 16, 4:01pm 1478833280

I agree. They talk about the uneducated ....but what about the uninformed. The smart set seem to be totally unaware of the 'Brexit / Trump/ Farange' that exists all through the globalised 'mucket". Try some small town main streets in NZ; the only party keeping this ship afloat is our excessive migrant influx.

by David Chaston | 11th Nov 16, 4:03pm 1478833420

Maybe fair enough. He won the Electoral College, which is their system, but not the popular vote (which is our system).

The issue for us is that we have an election next year and importing the strident, fact-less shouter-debased-debate style is not something I think will help us at all.

Our election will be important to us, and a civil debate about our issues (rather than importing issues and electioneering styles from other countries) is what we want to encourage.

We won't be able to set the tone for the wider NZ electorate at all, but we can ensure that the tone of what is debated on this site has some minimum standards.

Also, please you have read the standards above on what we will require.

by AK79 | 11th Nov 16, 4:10pm 1478833846

Winning the popular vote is rather meaningless in the US system. The electoral college means that if you are a Republican living in California there is no point in voting, if you are Democrat living in Texas there is no point in voting. If there was no electoral college who knows how people would have voted - but I think it would not be exactly as it was on Tuesday.

by Roger Witherspoon | 11th Nov 16, 4:30pm 1478835007

I appreciate the thought David, and I greatly appreciate the site you have created and the care you take in moderating it (although there are a few commentators I miss, like the chap who was into Social Money). Having said that there are a couple of issues I'm not sure about.

Personally I love Nigel Farage's style, some of his speeches are wonderful. His ridiculing of the smug nonentities at the top of the EU was just breathtaking and delightful. There is a great value in simplifying one's argument to the point of caricature, it throws the central issues into stark relief. The exact opposite of the endless verbosity and consequent unreadability of the awful publications the NZ government puts out, most of which should be in the appendix.

Secondly, Donald Trump's use of language to clarify his opponents' weakness was just masterly. Little Rubio, Low Energy Jeb, Crooked Hillary. Stunning.

Thirdly, I don't know about other people, but personally I find anger and frustration have an element of irrationality. You know something is wrong and that you are being outwitted, and you lash out at any and all likely culprits. "It's the banks", "It's the government", "It's the RMA", etc. We have adopted the view that civilised people shouldn't do this, that it is a vulgar, lower class, uneducated trait. Don't shoot the messenger.

by Stephen Hulme | 11th Nov 16, 4:33pm 1478835189

Donald Trump's victory was as much a repudiation of technocracy as the changing operations of the PBOC and the sacking of that country's finance minister. It cannot be understated that the electoral votes which gave Trump his margin of victory were those of the rust belt. Rural Pennsylvania and Michigan voters who delivered to Mr. Trump those states have in the very few days since the election been slandered repeatedly as xenophobic, sexist, and racist despite twice voting for Barack Obama.

"Something" is very wrong in the world and a great many people know it. Some have chosen to ignore it as the product of contemptable (their view) populism and nationalism, but it is quite telling that those people doing so are the same who get all their economic questions answered by the likes of Paul Krugman and Janet Yellen. Pennsylvania is today a "red" state because it had before given the "experts" all the chances in the world and then some. Read more

by Zachary Smith | 11th Nov 16, 4:44pm 1478835897

I think you have hit on something really important here. The problem is that many comments are not funny or clever - either or both is acceptable. An acceptable dodgy comment should be entertaining, intelligent, humorous and have a little bit of a sharp bite. People should avoid personal, crude, angry and bitter comments, they're the problematic ones.

by Roger Witherspoon | 11th Nov 16, 5:21pm 1478838119

Yes, but sometimes it's better to let people blow off steam and express themselves fully and forcefully, even if they overstep the boundary of polite discourse.

by Noncents | 11th Nov 16, 6:53pm 1478843622

Within reason though.

Go nuts in public and you get arrested. Do it in a forum you get moderated. Seems fair to me.

by Patricia | 12th Nov 16, 3:51pm 1478919061

But David, we don't actually have popular vote winners here. We have electorates with a varying number of people in them. The party which wins the most electorates wins. Just a variation of the electoral college?

by Zachary Smith | 12th Nov 16, 5:17pm 1478924240

Good point Patricia. Also a lot of list MPs are there only on a whim.

by OnwardsUpwards | 11th Nov 16, 4:04pm 1478833466

Trump's style of attacks are deplorable BUT to be fair, David, should you be resorting to Clinton's style of deleting things you don't like?

by Kermit The Frog | 11th Nov 16, 4:12pm 1478833954

David
With the greatest of respect you could have made your point (the thrust of which by the way I agree with) without trying to get a few hits in on Trump. Theres enough political bias in the MSM without having to read it here.

by Kakapo | 11th Nov 16, 5:17pm 1478837836

Looking forward to glorious day when all this tiresome Team Trump! Team Clinton! bollocks stops. Mindless tribalism, illusory polarisation.

by David Chaston | 11th Nov 16, 5:26pm 1478838419

Look, the issue for me is that we are going to have election here in 2017.

This new aggressive style of electioneering via rabid, excessive, fact-free hectoring will probably be imported. It is a globalised world and we can't avoid being interferred with (from Moscow or Beijing) or from the US and even Australia with their aggressively low tactics.

But we can have one place where personal smearing, of anyone, can be off the table. Those who pitch alternate publifc policy ideas, or those who defend existing public policy positions need to be respected. It is not an easy role, but it is an important one. Ideas need to be debated.

Those who have a position different to you are not 'corrupt'. They don't deserve to be locked up just for having a different position. But their ideas need to be challenged in a rational way.

And the 2017 NZ general election should have a corner that is civil.

We have just seen what can happen when it is a no holds barred brawl. It isn't useful and it does not progress anything. It just leaves everyone talking past each other, with tribes winning and tribes losing. In my opinion, in these situations you can only win by being the biggest bully. And you win by turning regular citizens off the whole process, clearing the ground in a scorched-earth way. It is a dreadful way to decide public policy.

What has been lost, is that politics used to be the art of compromise. Now it is the ability to impose. This is not a positive development.

The one and only thing I can do is create an environment where issues can be discussed as adults. An environment which is as smear- and abuse-free as possible. Yes it will restrain some debate, but the nasty stuff can go on elsewhere. Just not here.

The whole point of this article is to set the scene for 2017. If voices suddenly disappear, I don't have to endlessly explain why, and regular readers will just know why. I am who I am and I can at the very least cajole and moderate the worst of the internet's natural inclinations in this small side pocket of discussion.

If I am taking the wrong approach, our traffic will atrophy. I have been applying a stricter 'no-insults' policy for a while now, on an ad hoc basis and it has had no negative impact on readership at all. (Traffic is up +23% y-on-yr). We stepped back a little during the final stages of the US election, and it wasn't pretty to see.

We are going back to some old-fashioned standards of debate. Don't participate here if you can't be civil.

by OnwardsUpwards | 11th Nov 16, 5:43pm 1478839405

Well that was an honest and refreshing justification and I can respect that.

by Noncents | 11th Nov 16, 5:58pm 1478840309

"This new aggressive style of electioneering via rabid, excessive, fact-free hectoring will probably be imported. It is a globalised world and we can't avoid being interferred with (from Moscow or Beijing) or from the US and even Australia with their aggressively low tactics. "

So you agree - the new media style is at fault. All the electioneering is done via a platform - TV, Internet, radio and Newspapers. This is owned, operated, and controlled by the Media.

The media have long since stopped fact checking, removing bias, etc...
They show only one side of a story
They choose what the public need be told, not what they should know.
They attack politicians like dogs shouting for an answer to a question which is no more than a sound bite.
They no longer ask the questions we at home are asking.
They invented "click bait"
They encourage animosity then claim to be above it.
They report emotively rather than objectively
They deliberately polarise to create controversy where none existed before.
They report "facts", rather than the truth.

It is the media who are now less trustworthy than politicians.

The media are the enablers, and it is the media that have taken the rabid heckling to the masses.

Maybe it is time they look at themselves.

The US election showed the media up. But among the tirades of nonsense, gibberish, and lies. One person stood out, and has been lauded the world over.

John King - he reported facts, provided succinct analysis and at no time got emotional, irrational, or showed any bias. He shut down the maniac host, who seemed solely intent on interrupting and adding irrelevant opinion. He alone showed what the media could be. Unbiased, Impartial, and insightful.

That is what people want the media to be like.

That is what the media should inspire to be.

by childofthesun | 11th Nov 16, 9:07pm 1478851675

Noncents - couldn't agree more with you re. John King who also did a terrific job on election night with the map of US states and drilling down to county level with a fluid and well informed interpretation of voting trends.

As for fact checking, my 8 year old's class embarked on a project 6 weeks out from voting day to analyse the veracity of the statements made by the two candidates during their televised debates. It became clear very quickly that the effort made by my daughter and her friends would have far exceeded the same efforts made by numerous publications including among them the Washington Post and The New York Times whose bias for Clinton and contempt for Trump exposes them to accusations of trying to influence the outcome of the election.

Meanwhile, in NZ, let's breathe a huge sigh of relief following the ComCom's draft rejection of the Fairfax/NZME merger. Editorial independence is already woeful here without making it worse.

by Justice | 11th Nov 16, 6:14pm 1478841269

Not one single Human Right has come about via just civil behaviour. Rather, 'civil disobedience'. Rights have been fought for over the ages, killed for even. That is our history, Western, Middle East etc etc.

The 2017 election tone is going to be rough whether this site agree's with it or not. People here like elsewhere are fed up with the BS. They are fed up with media censorship and particularly media 'opinions' that were never asked for. That's all we seem to get these days from media. THEIR opinion. How about they just give us the news and shut it?

by Noncents | 11th Nov 16, 6:23pm 1478841827

Exactly. Present the facts, let us form our own opinions, then discuss them.

That is the backbone of rational debate.

by David Chaston | 11th Nov 16, 6:47pm 1478843269

Justice: Why don't you just set up your own 'news' website? It's cheap and easy to do. Anyone can do it. Then open up your platform to all-comers. That way you can get your prefered style out there and if it has any substance it will get traction. You can go after your 'revolution'.

interest.co.nz will be happy to compete with you for readers.

But while you on our site, you will need to respect our commenting standards.

We will continue to offer varying opinion pieces, including our own. Expecting us to ban the ones you don't like is completely unrealistic here. Also expect me to defend an open, liberal democracy, as opinion. I will pitch the idea; I will expect debate. But leave the abuse for your own news website.

Just don't expect me to do your bidding or tolerate any intolerance.

by Justice | 11th Nov 16, 9:48pm 1478854127

Youre 'assuming' a number of things again. I note your banning 'polls' ? Good start. I'm all for opinions David, just not from MSM journalists who have become establishment talking head celebs who only speak from one biased platform. And as of very recently been found to be completely off the mark.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that is what brought many of us 'foundation' commenters here to this site? To get some financial truths from the likes of Bernard Hickey etc.

Rules are rules. That's fine. But the fact remains, 'moderation' is still censorship. And you can't get much less democratic than that.
So as one of the foundation community I bid this site farewell. Take care all

by Zachary Smith | 11th Nov 16, 10:14pm 1478855663

I understand why you are wanting to leave Justice. David is forbidding you to use possibly the only weapon that will give you a chance in the upcoming struggle. It reminds me of The Last Samurai where the warriors with only swords face off against Gatling guns. It's noble and gentlemanly and all but will not lead to victory.

Setting up your own web site with a like minded group where memes can be generated, videos posted and extreme views aired in a very colourful way may not be a bad idea. You will also need to censor, a bit like Trump did at his rallies when he had people thrown out to make sure you stay on message. Good luck although I am sure most here will welcome you back if you change your mind.

by Pureant | 13th Nov 16, 11:34am 1478990045

It seems a little precious to suggest that when you remove abuse, shouting, personal attacks, etc there is nothing left in the tool box.
It still leaves obfuscation, confirmation bias, cherry picking, mis information etc etc.
Plenty left.

by Zachary Smith | 13th Nov 16, 11:52am 1478991151

I totally agree and those last things you mention are great weapons however I think a lot of us suspect the censorship will go beyond those things and include anything that smacks of Trumpism. This makes sense as the site owners don't want to be a platform for something they abhor. Perhaps we just need to develop better unarmed combat skills like they did in China when new overlords forbade the people to use military weapons. Damning with faint praise should be used more often for instance.

by Kermit The Frog | 12th Nov 16, 9:53am 1478897595

David I could be wrong but I have sensed a noticable change in your commentary in recent months. I also noticed a number of anti Trump comments from writers that quite simply added nothing to the discussion.
Follow the lead of the MSM at your peril - it will be you that ultimately suffers via a reduction in eyeballs on this site.
If you are going to have a chip at a politician make sure you share it around where warranted, otherwise balance gives way to bias.

by middleman1 | 11th Nov 16, 5:56pm 1478840171

A useful reminder but does make me slightly uneasy. Personally I find it easy to quickly skip the party political type comments that seem to come in quick succession groups and also flick past the insulters and shouters so don't really believe it is a big issue here.
It is the experience of the way another prominent site filters contrarian comments that has me concerned that a similar censoring process may creep in to this generally open minded and balanced site that allows hard hitting debate and robust language.
A friend who is a published academic wrote a critiquing response comment to an article on this other site about an issue on which my friend has specialist knowledge. This response was hard hitting but balanced and fair but exposed some terrible journalism. It was immediately rejected.
I had a go and was careful. No bad language, none of the mild sarcasm or gentle piss taking that is one of the joys of interest.co. But kaboom - also rejectec because I disagreed with a populist position.
It was very apparent the site concerned was controlling the conversation and only publishing favourable, neutral or banal comments.
I no longer contribute to the other site and read no comments on it as they are clearly being censored on content , not just bad language or insults.
There is a very fine line between necessary filtering of inappropriate comments and introducing bias by rejecting impassioned argument on the pretext of language deemed to be too strong.l
I hope interest.co will continue its policy of posting when and why a comment has been edited or deleted.

by MikeM | 11th Nov 16, 6:20pm 1478841625

Stuff.co.nz comes to mind. They take the easy route of switching off the comments when there is any hint of controversy contained in the article. That should be a civil rights violation. It's blatant control of freedom of speech. But that's MSM for you.

by Justice | 11th Nov 16, 6:28pm 1478842130

They do indeed, and they also filter what stories (domestic and international) can be commented on. It's "media controlling the message" which is frightening in it's own respect. To have such power without consent.

Setting the tone is not the job of the 4th Estate. Particularly when much of our media is now corporate entities with their own interests

by Noncents | 11th Nov 16, 6:39pm 1478842767

They have actually gotten worse.

I have a record of one article on the US election where comments were allowed. I even managed to make a comment myself that was published. The article was junk, but the comments for the most part (it is stuff after all) were actually very good.

Came back about 45 minutes later. The article was there, the comments were all gone, not just removed. I mean completely eradicated. It was as though they republished the article and had removed the comment functionality completely. 60 something comments, with replies. I am guessing thousands of views, and poof - the whole thing removed like it was never there in the first place. No ability to comment, no mention it did have comments, nothing. Just a bland article.

I am all for moderation. But wholesale erasure and censure. That is scary.

by middleman1 | 11th Nov 16, 7:52pm 1478847145

That is very scary Noncents. MSM smothering genuine debate with pap is why traffic on sites such as this one is increasing so strongly. These days you need to cycle through a range of sites and review their polarized positions then come here as one of the few places left where Neo Thatcherites still trade punches with unreconstructed Trotskyites, where boomers, X,Y and snowflake gen cheerfully eviscerate each other, all on the same site and with relative good humour.
But most don't have the time or inclination to seek out a range of views and either succumb to the political sound bite vacuum sites where the bewildered can be easily manipulated or latch fervently on to the dangerously simplistic slogans elsewhere that masquerade as political debate these days.
I agree with David that there is a risk this site could become just another polarized shouty soapbox unless basic rules of political debate are enforced, running into next years election. But his 'trust me to do the right thing, if someone is "disappeared" , they will have deserved it' line, isn't sitting all that comfortably with me. I think we need to know they have been loaded onto a wagon and sent to the Gulag.

by Noncents | 11th Nov 16, 9:16pm 1478852207

The truth is out there, so they say. But it is harder to find among the widely varying extreme views.

I usually assume somewhere in the middle is about right, but even that is usually just wishful thinking on my part.

by BadRobot | 11th Nov 16, 8:30pm 1478849437

It's all about optics

by Camel's back | 11th Nov 16, 6:41pm 1478842867

How about some democracy in action... run a poll ? ask commentors what level of censorship would be appropriate?

by David Chaston | 11th Nov 16, 6:54pm 1478843641

No. No 'polls' here anymore. They are too easy to be gamed, and they are entirely unscientific so they are meaningless. You need a randon sample to have a meaningful poll, and reader polls are far from that.

Internet polls are never 'democracy in action'.

by Camel's back | 11th Nov 16, 7:25pm 1478845538

I disagree, one day all voting will be online and identification checks will be much improved (let the banks sort that out)
A true democracy runs on "one person one vote" i hope to one day, have more say in the running of our country and technology/internet is the way it will be achieved.

by nymad | 11th Nov 16, 7:38pm 1478846284

I think you miss the point...

by Camel's back | 11th Nov 16, 7:58pm 1478847531

My point is, that inane comments that slur commenters here, are unnecessary and unwanted. Where is the line in the sand?

by nymad | 11th Nov 16, 8:19pm 1478848786

That wasn't what DC was rebutting, nor the point you missed.
He was highlighting that any polls in the context of interest.co.nz (or any non validated poll) are pointless - which they are because of the bias distributions of the reader base.

The fact that you were arguing (disagreeing) that one day we may rely on neo technology for vote casting is both irrelevant to the present case and the point he was making.

by Camel's back | 11th Nov 16, 8:50pm 1478850642

Your previous comment for example? It has neither substance nor anything to add... and could be seen as derogatory... is that allowed?

by nymad | 11th Nov 16, 8:29pm 1478849375

See above.
Of course it had something to add - it was intended to return you to the point that DC made.
Keep you on topic, if you may.

by Camel's back | 11th Nov 16, 8:46pm 1478850374

Of course... thank you nymad. David is welcome to say "no no" to polls... how the business is run is no affair of mine, but I take issue with comments like... Internet polls are never 'democracy in action' . They the closest we have ever been (since we got shuffled out of the voting tent) for a very long time.

by nymad | 11th Nov 16, 8:55pm 1478850947

...But by your own admission democracy is "one man, one vote".
If this precondition can not be maintained, then what we have is nothing like democratic doctrine. Hence the basis of the argument.

I'll agree, the internet has been a great liberator of democratic ideals. However internet polls are nowhere near 'democracy in action' for the very reason mentioned above.

by Camel's back | 11th Nov 16, 9:12pm 1478851943

My good Sir, Indeed your thoughts enrich me... i do offer one thought of my own.
That is.. if this precondition cannot be maintained, it is because they are scared.

by Fritz | 11th Nov 16, 6:45pm 1478843141

David - can we insult politicians?
Surely that has always been fair game.
I hope we can still do that....

by David Chaston | 11th Nov 16, 6:49pm 1478843383

No you can't. You can debate their policy ideas. But don't do insults of anyone. (The 'fair game' idea has gotten out of hand, everywhere.)

by Noncents | 11th Nov 16, 7:06pm 1478844396

"No you can't. You can debate their policy ideas. But don't do insults of anyone."

I agree but is the below policy debate? Freedom of speech? an insult? a veiled insult? or just an opinion that is "fair game"?

"The rise of Trump and the permission his bullying style "

"The promotion of fact-less shouting, misogyny and authoritarianism is not a good thing."

"using Trump-style tactics"

Were I to swap Trump with another commenters name, or an Interest Journalists name - would I be able to write this in a comment?

by dictator | 11th Nov 16, 8:02pm 1478847744

Setting aside that Trump is a public figure he has actively promoted shouting down people in such a way that it has even led to violence at his rallies. It is a fact the Trump does this. Given that it would not damage Trump's reputation I do not see that it's an insult.

by profile | 11th Nov 16, 8:21pm 1478848871

Watch the O'Keefe videos to see who was behind stirring up violence at Trump rallies. Illuminating.

"FOVAL: You remember the Iowa State Fair thing where Scott Walker grabbed the sign out of the dude’s hand and then the dude gets kind of roughed up right in front of the stage right there on camera?

PV: Yeah.

FOVAL: That was all us. The guy that got roughed up is my counterpart, who works for Bob [Creamer].

PV: And that was like, storyboarded? Him getting roughed up like that?

FOVAL: We scenarioed it.

PV: And so you, like leant yourselves to that situation and it happened. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

FOVAL: We not only leant ourselves, we planted multiple people in that front area around him and in the back to make sure there wasn’t just a action that happened up front, there was also a reaction that happened out back. So the cameras, when they saw it, saw double angles of stuff like, they saw what happened up front, and they saw the reaction of people out back."

by Noncents | 11th Nov 16, 9:20pm 1478852409

By its very nature a comment is in the public domain so would fulfil the same criteria, the fact that the poster is anonymous means their reputation (in real life) is intact, and has not been damaged.

Does that mean there cannot be an insult in a comment?

by Noncents | 11th Nov 16, 9:38pm 1478853482

Violence only at his rallies?
Violence only when he wins?

I don't think he incited violence against himself.

USA has very strict rules around freedom of speech. So if you don't want to hear what he has to say:
a) Don't go to his rally.
b) Don't go to his rally then interrupt it.
c) Don't go to his rally then interrupt it and try to pick a fight with his supporters, and
d) my favourite option - don't vote for him!

oh and in case people are still unsure about Democracy and Free Speech - Definitely don't riot, loot and assault people because you lost an election you spent your whole campaign claiming was most definitely not rigged.

by Patricia | 12th Nov 16, 4:06pm 1478919974

It will be wonderful if a discussion on policy will happen. We haven't had that for years. The parties pick people that are likeable and that seems what people want. A very good example of that is John Key. 'Such a lovely man'. For gods sake. Apart from the bicycle track has he ever had a policy?

by bigblue | 12th Nov 16, 5:14pm 1478924075

Key's government announced a policy of partial privatisation of five state-owned enterprises; while the policy was enacted, voters in a citizens-initiated referendum on the issue were 2 to 1 opposed to the policy.
He's a bit like Trump - minimal political experience prior to becoming PM https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key

by bigblue | 12th Nov 16, 5:16pm 1478924208

He also wanted a new flag. Do we believe the polls that indicate Key will get another 3 years in 2017 or will we have a Brexit or a Trump outcome - Paul Henry for PM!

by Zachary Smith | 12th Nov 16, 5:50pm 1478926201

Paul Henry for PM! An absolutely genius idea bigblue!

by Alter Ego | 12th Nov 16, 5:21pm 1478924518

Sorry doubled up on that one...Patricia.

Yes, to turn New Zealand into the kind of place he would like to play golf in.
A few holes in that theory, though.
But I do believe he invested a few million of someone else's money in flags in preparation, but a few holes in that theory too. It never added up.

by André | 11th Nov 16, 8:15pm 1478848532

A very positive move David. Thank you. I enjoy constructive reader comments which add value to the story being discussed. But I started coming here less as I found the comments were increasingly disgusting and probably put off a lot of people adding actual value to the debate.

by Zachary Smith | 11th Nov 16, 10:32pm 1478856743

In your view André what constituted a disgusting comment? Was it bad language or referring to bodily functions? Was it arrogance, smugness or lack of empathy? Was it extreme left views or extreme right views? Was it someone expressing a personal prejudice? The articles themselves were surely worth visiting for as you are not forced to read the comments.

by Basel Brush III | 11th Nov 16, 9:43pm 1478853805

Why bother to comment at all when the less than neutral right's editing standards rule out robust comment even when avoiding strong language.
AIMVHO

by keywest | 12th Nov 16, 2:46am 1478871996

It would be good to see the end of #JKEXIT or any #tag...a penny for every time i read them...

by Alter Ego | 12th Nov 16, 6:45am 1478886328

There is more debates to come.
We have strayed away from houses, for a day or so.
We have tried politics and logic. Lost that one completely.
We have tried Justice and lost. Hopefully not lost that one completely.
Though some may say Justice went out the window, years ago. The American dream is no more. As usual ..I digress.
This is not about Interest anymore.
This is not about politeness anymore.
This about World Affairs now, who is now screwing who. and just why.
It used to be about Oil, Gold, Franking bleedin cents and Mer. Tradeable items.
Now it is about all our Futures. Plus a cashless society, so people can steal much more quickly, in nanoseconds, if not careful.
Trolls and witch hunts in the comments section are a little distracting.
Perhaps we can all calm down and give credit where it is due. (Would that not be nice).
Perhaps we can get back to what this site should be all about.
Finance and the right thing to do.
The Governments have tried injecting QE, and any Capital Items you care to name.
I have tried to inject the unfairness of stealing from Peter to pay Paul.
There is a war going on in the background. It is all about financial accountability. No one can account for what is really going on.
I come here to try to find out the truth.
I also come here to point out and link to certain items I find. It may help others to understand, why I am bemused, bothered and bewildered.
I try to inject a little topical humour, particularly Fridays.
I also hate Bankers and Politicians with vested interests, as they caused all the issues we sometimes over heatedly debate, that will never change.
I try not to upset any particular person, we have lost way to many intelligent ones over the years. Nothing more certain, than death and taxes.
Nothing personal...just good natured ribbing.
We are all at a loss as to what is unfolding...and it ain't money now.
So kiss and makeup. It is all an act...get with the program.
David's site...his rules. There are plenty of others all around the world...but not quite as open about it...comment wise.....as this one.
Credit, where credit....is due. Otherwise..I would not bovver. We are all in his....Debt.

by Zachary Smith | 12th Nov 16, 10:35am 1478900152

How about a dodgy comment quarantine container where comments linger for a bit before being gulaged. Each offending comment could have a label such as:

Sophomoric
Childish
Off Topic
Personal Insult
Boring
Too Long
Godwin's Law
Spelled Lose as Loose
Made fun of a pseudonym by altering it
Spruiking
Disengenuous
Too many assumptions
Too many comments
Lacking empathy
Smug
Bleeding Heart
Not funny enough
Too crude
Opposed to the webmaster's political agenda
Racist
Sexist
Homophobic
Mentioned White Privilege
Micro-aggression

There must be more...

by President of P… | 12th Nov 16, 1:35pm 1478910903

If that flag at the top of the website was changed to he whakaputanga flag or the more commonly recognized flag that most kiwis know then it would be one less thing to comment on in a negative way - just saying...

President of Property

by Zachary Smith | 12th Nov 16, 2:54pm 1478915659

Flag referendum, Brexit then Trump. NZ first again!

by Yvil | 12th Nov 16, 1:56pm 1478912192

Well done David, just ban people who use this column for insults rather than intelligent and constructive discussion of ideas

by Zachary Smith | 12th Nov 16, 5:20pm 1478924406

I don't think there would be any complaints if it were that simple. What is being introduced is the banning of any comments that advocate the mirroring of the Trump Movement in NZ, any comments that are biased in favour of the majority ethnic/cultural group of NZ. The reason for this is not entirely clear as it is likely to be the only way a significant change that looked after our children's future could be brought about. I don't believe it is about style as the Left have been demonising, mocking and bullying conservatives for ages. The reasoning may have the best of intentions however the result is that the site sympathises with the ruling elite's agenda which is an identity-less* world. The current flag is a strong symbol of identity. That said, it is the site owner's prerogative.

*or rather an identity that they create.

by Gummy Bear Hero | 13th Nov 16, 3:41pm 1479004897

... yes ... recall that verbal spray actor Robert de Niro gave to Donald Trump , calling the Don a " mutt " , and saying that he ( de Niro ) wanted to punch Trump in the face ...

In that amazing rant , de Niro exhibited all the horrible traits he said he detested in Trump ...

... hypocrisy at its finest ... and from Hollywood ... are we surprised ... ha ha deeee haaaaaaaaa !

by Zachary Smith | 13th Nov 16, 4:03pm 1479006212

There has been a lot of this hypocrisy and not keeping promises. Two things come to mind regarding celebrities. One was that many promised to leave the US if Trump won. Another was celebrities recently offering to house refugees. These people need to be badgered until they fulfill their pledges. I am even willing to donate to a crowd funding page to hurry things along for them.

by Sheep Shagger | 12th Nov 16, 5:16pm 1478924187

David, fully support your intent of keeping some decorum on this site. There will be some heightened tensions as we approach next years election which is actually a good thing, its an important event. One of the great strengths of this site is the knowledgeable commenters that it attracts and that the debates are normally of a respectful nature. I loath the partisan political websites as the emergence of any dissenting view quickly descends into vitriolic personal abuse, often without any attempt to address the issue completely rendering the exercise meaningless. While I would be concerned if genuine debate was being limited I don't think it is your intention and I for one will be grateful to you for providing a forum where the actual issues can be debated without the personal nonsense.

by Zachary Smith | 12th Nov 16, 5:24pm 1478924677

Nothing personal, just a laugh, but someone who calls himself Sheep Shagger advocating decorum? Seriously?

by Sheep Shagger | 12th Nov 16, 5:30pm 1478925007

Yes, maybe not my finest decision!

by Penguin | 12th Nov 16, 6:46pm 1478929604

The electorate are fed up with professional politicians who have no experience in the real world.

by Alter Ego | 12th Nov 16, 7:09pm 1478930986

I heartily endorse that sentiment....Penguin.

Good to see it in black and white. Well said.

It is our collective funds, they are playing with. Plus we overpay em too. to screw...up.

by Andrewj | 12th Nov 16, 10:08pm 1478941729

What looks real could be an illusion
http://bawerk.net/2016/11/11/toward-a-new-world-order-part-ii/

by kiwimannz | 13th Nov 16, 7:55am 1478976921

Censorship at best.

This too is a form intolerance but people's voice cannot be supressed

by Gummy Bear Hero | 13th Nov 16, 3:27pm 1479004022

... I pissed my nappies at the thought of interest.co.nz being intolerant of intolerance ...

That is oxymoronic , is it not ?

by Pureant | 13th Nov 16, 8:17am 1478978277

I welcome tighter guidelines. I note even in this comment stream a clear persecution complex emerging among some. I have also noted on other sites a deluge of extreme comments that we dont normally see. Its as if a small extreme army of trolls is being mobilized.
I guess the whole point of comments is not simply to vent the spleen, but to develop clear lines of argument.
The inability to analyse and to even care about facts has led to the current populism.

by Zachary Smith | 13th Nov 16, 9:19am 1478981947

"Persecution complex" -another label I can add to my list of gulagable comments. Also "claiming someone has a persecution complex" that would be valid too.

Troll army is an interesting idea. Imagine ten people with ten sock puppet accounts, that would be about two platoons of trolls.

by reena | 13th Nov 16, 8:27am 1478978830

For Trump winning instead of blaming the people - political parties in power and so called media experts should do some introspection of themselves and respect democracy (I understand that many time people who should not be elected are voted but it is just an individual perception whether it is USA or NZ).

by two otherguys | 13th Nov 16, 3:41pm 1479004915

What has me baffled is the level and depth to which New Zealanders living here in New Zealand have expressed opinions on American politics and the election of Donald Trump as the next US president

The breadth of opinion is extraordinary
Here are NZers telling America what is wrong with it

Why don't we get the same degree (volume) of analysis and opinions about NZ politics and politicians
Never saw that level of heat and hostility at the last NZ election

Please - don't tell me they are waiting for the starters gun

by Gummy Bear Hero | 13th Nov 16, 3:50pm 1479005439

... the starter's gun won't be heard until sometime in 2017 ... and besides which , we don't find either of John Key nor Andrew Little nearly as polarizing as we find Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton ...

And there is that little fact that the USA represents 25 % of the world's economy ... NZ is a mere 0.2 % .... some cows pooping in the streams , some freedom tourists pooping under the trees , and some ratepayers pooping in their pants ... NZ Pure B.S. ....

by Zachary Smith | 13th Nov 16, 3:52pm 1479005570

Never saw that level of heat and hostility at the last NZ election.

I think that is essentially what this thread is about. David Chaston doesn't want to see that level of heat and hostility expressed here or possibly anywhere else in NZ. We are debating whether that is a good viewpoint or not. Well that's the impression I get.

by scarfie | 13th Nov 16, 4:39pm 1479008343

Given my own comments on this site, I sometimes moderate them by saying that what I might consider ideal is often far removed from what I expect to get. I suspect David needs to take that attitude as I don't expect he is going to get what he wants. Maybe he can get it in his small part of the world, but the reality is the subdued (lack of relative volatility across a number of areas, including politics) world of the last 30 years or so has undergone a paradigm shift. Brexit and Trump signal the start of that process, not a temporary anomaly.

by idle | 13th Nov 16, 4:06pm 1479006413

For years I have been a regular visitor to interest.co.nz, and it is a measure of support for David Chaston that I have now, finally, decided to register. In the last few years I have been increasingly uncomfortable with some comments that have verged on pointless rants, so "Good on yer, David!"