Liberal Democrat Voice and moderation - some historical perspective...

As the former Readers' Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, I was obliged to give much thought to the dilemma that faces any debating platform, i.e. how do you create a space which is inclusive yet lively, informative but not aggressive, in the face of accusations of being either overly laissez-faire or unreasonably censorious? My conclusion was that you can never satisfy everyone, so you might as well be true to yourself and as consistent and transparent as you can.

Of course, the dilemma is one that predates the Internet, as this guidance, explicitly defining the formal conditions for fruitful conversation, demonstrates;

During the discussion that followed readings or lectures, members were to avoid arbitrary or ill-considered comments. Critiques should engage in a structured way with the style, method and content of the lecture. They should employ 'the cautious language of reason'. Digressions and interruptions were strictly prohibited. All members were ultimately guaranteed the right to have their say, but they must wait their turn and make remarks as concise as possible. Satirical or mocking remarks and suggestive wordplay were unacceptable.

The fact that the guidance was issued by the 'German societies' which sprang up across Prussia in the mid-eighteenth century, does tell you that discussion moderation has been an issue for some time now and, indeed, that the basic problems are unchanging.

For the Liberal Democrat Voice team, that demonstrates the scale of the moderation challenge. In the early days, moderation was quite relaxed, before tightening up significantly after the expenses scandal in 2009. I admit that, subsequently, I had thought that moderation had become excessive until I became part of the team myself, and began to appreciate the challenges brought about by some of the behaviours exhibited.

But now, I find myself wondering whether or not the current policy finds the team caught between two stools - activist in terms of one-off incidents, yet excessively tolerant in terms of those who consistently derail threads, behave aggressively towards other participants or who seek to distort the apparent support for their position by multiple commenting.

The policy of placing 'difficult' individuals in auto-moderation is, as far as it goes, merely a starting point. It generates more work for the team, work which is trying, to say the least, and irritates those penalised, often causing them to spend time challenging the moderation policy, generating even more work.

It is argued that banning people is illiberal. Banning people because you feel like It is illiberal. But if you establish a set of rules, clearly stated, you are obliged to enforce them, and the punishment is meant to be for those breaking them, not those enforcing them. It is not censorship to deny those who lack respect for the rules of a community a platform - there are plenty of other platforms for them - below the line on most articles in the national newspapers, Guido Fawkes, the list is probably endless.

Whilst the articles on Liberal Democrat Voice retain their interest, the comments below are too often predictable and dominated by what seems like an diminishing number of individuals. I note that my engagement, as well as my participation, has dropped recently, and I wonder if I am alone in that.

But those of us who wish it were better do have a responsibility too. We could engage, adhering to the rules for the 'German societies' outlined above, and see how it goes. After all, we'd miss Liberal Democrat Voice if it were gone, wouldn't we?