Ok, I know this sort of post bores the hell out of some people but I like to put things like this on record so that next time people like Lynn Prentice try to claim I have lied it’s easy for me to produce proof to the contrary.
And I think it’s useful to challenge and expose the way New Zealand’s standard bearer for the Labour left operates – under a culture of lies and abuse. While it’s on a lesser scale to what Whale Oil was The Standard persistently practices dirty attack politics, promoted and protected by Prentice.
One of the most ridiculous aspects of Prentice’s April Foolish outburst is he proves himself wrong. He says:
So lets see you find evidence to the contrary in previous bans. Go and find any instance on this site where you have been banned where this site got upset at “…being challenged or having alternatives to their controlled message being expressed.”, as opposed to being kicked off for violating an existing rule on our site that you either walked too close to, ignored or disliked.
I already checked while writing the post and there are none. I have provided explanations each time for why you were banned framed in terms of OUR policy. So show me one where that isn’t the case.
I’ve already provided Proof that Prentice is wrong on a past ban, and there’s more examples. He must not have had time yet to post his apology (based on his past record he’s more likely to launch another fact-less rant).
He also proved himself wrong with his latest rant and ban. He posted:
You have consistently lied here and on other blogs about why you were banned. You have been banned from other blogs and then lied about why you were banned. In my opinion, you are a toxic blogger who seems to lie. In all cases you appeared to lie to play the victim.
To give you an incentive – you are banned for a year for lying about this site – unless you can provide one by the end of easter.
Bizarrely with this ban he proves himself wrong. He hasn’t kicked me off “for violating an existing rule on our site that you either walked too close to, ignored or disliked“. He hasn’t referred to anything I have done or said since returning from my previous ban.
He has quoted something I posted last month here on Your NZ that obviously got up his nose as the reason for the ban.
So beware, under Prentice’s new application of his make-them-up-as-he-goes rules if he finds something anywhere in social or mainstream media he doesn’t like he can and will ban someone for it if he chooses. That’s a new level of ridiculous blog moderation, more so than the Cameron Slater/Pete Belt and Martyn Bradbury levels of paranoia at being criticised.
And it’s especially ridiculous because a blog moderator can ban anyone they like any time they like for any reason, it’s their blog, their rules. At least Slater/Belt and Bradbury don’t go to thios amount of bother to come up with erroneous ‘rule’ breaches as an excuse, they just do it (albeit secretly to not draw attention to their controlling of their messages).
But wait, there’s more.
All high comment blogs have rules which you expect to follow when you are on those sites. They are there to minimize the amount of work that the moderators have to do. But Pete often doesn’t follow the rules as can be seen in this comment to an author that got him banned.
Thanks for the reminder about your deliberate dishonesty.
And thanks for the opportunities to keep demonstrating your dishonesty. So far you’ve managed to keep that out of your authoring (that’s been promising) but you’ll find it’s difficult to keep the two separate – lying at one level will end up impacting on another.
He attacked one of the new authors directly and personally, which is something that I can do but he is very limited in what he can do. That is against the policy about attacking the site or authors. That policy is in there for a particular reason. It is hard to get authors to write for nothing on a site. So we tend to protect those people who give up their time to do so because this is the authors site.
This relates to Te Reo Putake who is a long time commenter at The Standard, and has a history of persistent lying and abusing and breaking Standard rules with impunity – I can recall Prentice defending his behaviour, typical of his double Standard.
This incident began with a comment from one of TRP’s stalker apprentices, One Anonymous Bloke, who said:
No, I mean none of your false interpretations, Racist George, and I haven’t the slightest inclination to explain it to you.
Why weren’t you at the Pegida rally?
That, as is common with OAB, breaks Standard rules but that’s allowed for some. I replied:
You always seem to duck for cover when challenged to back up your rhetoric. And you’re off topic on this thread.
“Why weren’t you at the Pegida rally?”
Because it was on the other side of the world. I thought even you would have worked out something obvious like that. Why weren’t you at the counter protest?
But I’ve backed Newcastle Unites from here. Have you?
OAB frequently attacks people (not just me) and rarely backs up his attacks with any facts, and as he does here he refuses to support his attacks. This is against the rules but again, usually impunity.
Te Reo Putake joined:
Wow! Only distance prevents racist Pete from marching with the fascists. Thanks for the unintended honesty, schmuck.
And that’s when I responded (as per above), to TRP as a commenter. This was on Open Mike where TRP had no involvement as an author. But he tried to protect himself with author status.
You acknowledge I’m an author, yet you call me a liar. The TS policy is pretty clear about abuse of authors. Would you please withdraw and apologise.
I made it clear you’re a liar as a commenter, not as an author and re-emphasise that. A persistent liar that pre-dates your authoring. You can’t hide behind a higher status for your low commenting.
[That is a distinction that I do not recognise. Tone it down – MS]
And so it went on until later lprent stepped in and banned me because I “attacked one of the new authors directly and personally”. Because that long time commenter had attacked me directly and personally. But because that commenter has just become an author his abuse and attacks can’t be confronted.
Back to lprent’s April foolish post where he also said:
But what got him banned was not that directly. It was that he managed to make a whole long comment thread about this purported “dishonesty” and didn’t provide ANY examples. Not one link. No referenced quotes to point to it. Nothing…
OAB and TRP and a number of others contributed significantly to making “a whole long comment thread “. That’s what they frequently do, and they’ve also often then accused me of disrupting threads. Standard practice.
OAB and TRP didn’t provide ANY examples. Not one link. No referenced quotes to point to it. Nothing…
And lprent even acknowledged that TRP had provoked things (a frequently broken Standard rule “we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks”):
But banned one month only because TRP was winding you up.
While the comments thread now doesn’t show this because moderator comments aren’t time stamped apparently on reflection lprent later acknowledged:
lprent: It is a valid point. But FFS phrase the responses better. I don’t like cleaning up reaction messes.
Except that it wasn’t a ‘valid point’, it was deliberate pointless personal attack.
After the ban I requested a right of reply, which I was given.
Can I exercise a right of reply?
But I really find it objectionable to see it when the idiot critic (ie you) neither links to an example of whatever they are moaning about nor explains what it is so that I can look at the issue. That is lying by omission in my book – something that in my mind characterises your usual writing style.
I’ve explained here a number of times – and have specifically pointed that it was TRP lying by omission. Which he has continued to do.
He claimed to have quoted me but hadn’t, and then when called on that repeatedly part quoted me, lying by omitting the whole quote.
If you support that sort of tactic from one of your authors then so be it, it’s your blog.
Don’t ever target my authors again with unsubstantiated and unlinked smearing as a tactic. To me that appears to be what you are doing here.
It’s pretty obvious that this began and continued with TRP “with unsubstantiated and unlinked smearing as a tactic” and continuing doing that.
If you don’t allow any response to that sort of tactic you’re being as bad as Bradbury and Slater in the way you censor out things that show up your crap.
That’s a bit sad isn’t it, especially after you claiming the high ground on comment control in your spat with Bradbury.
Yes he wound you up. Complain to me or in general. Don’t target authors personally because I really really need them more than I need you.
FFS. He and others try to wind me up all the time. As if you hadn’t noticed. And then get wound up when I call you on it. You sound wound up now. Tch tch.
The next time that I see you do this kind of deliberate targeting, I will boot you off for a year.
You’re accusing me of deliberate targeting. Very funny. But somehow I suspect you don’t see the joke.
But banned one month only because TRP was winding you up. ]
I’m not questioning that, I’m happy to have a month off. TRP et al with have to find someone else to try and wind up.
As I (think) I probably said. I don’t have time to trace every previous discussion and I lack the ability to read minds remotely. So I look at the comment based what is in it and have a brief look at the conversation around it. Which is why TRP got a public warning and a private discussion about future behaviour. Which is a bit unusual because I generally rap knuckles on authors using the back channels.
It appears that he jumped in and banned me, then had a proper look at it and gave TRP a rap on the knuckles for being at fault. Standard double standard.
But treat authors differently. Link to supporting info when having a go at them because the balance of the moderation shifts for them. I don’t treat them as commentators anymore simply because we need to retain them to write conversation starters for this site. With authors I balance my need to retain authors against ‘fairness’. But the supporting information had better be in the comments I am looking at because I won’t go looking for it. I simply don’t have time with the numbers of comments that flow through here. ]
So commenters need to dot their ‘i’s and cross their ‘t’s with supporting comments and stil get banned but authors can personally attack and then make things up that were demonstrably false – I provided supporting information despite lprent claiming I didn’t.
Now lprent et al can do whatever they like at The Standard. Their blog, their lop-sided rules often ignored rules and double standards.
And I can point this out here, putting the way they operate on record.
And I can also point out that this is a very poor look for the main New Zealand forum representing ‘the Labour left’.
And I’m not the only one pointing out the dogs breakfast of standards at the Labour left Standard led by the mongrel who’s all bark, lprent.
There’s been lengthy and on-going (up to yesterday) examinining the culture at The Standard with no involvement from me, that amongst other things has discussed things like authors abusing their status, imbalance of power and the use of bans – Murray Rawshark was banned much to the consternation of supporters, some of whom have gone on a comments strike for the duration of his ban.
This began on a post Winston takes Northland by author STEPHANIE RODGERS. Murray’s comments from here:
“But unfortunately Winston didn’t tell anyone about his plans to run until very late in the game – a luxury of being a one-man band who doesn’t have pesky party-democratic processes to deal with.”
Yeah, Labour really knows how to work with other parties. Step 1: insult them.
Winston and his party have succeeded in rocking Key, so what does a good Labour social democrat do? Give the credit to Andrew Little. Way to make friends and influence people.
Yeah, it’s not an official party statement. It is however a statement from someone perceived as being aligned with them.
I am a member, but Murray’s comment is still rather too close to the line about ascribing posts on this site to official Labour statements.
Murray – don’t do that again.
And don’t tell me who I can give credit to. Winston clearly ran a good campaign but he got there with significant help from the Labour (and Green, and probably Mana too) voters of Northland.
Sorry for having an opinion. I will never ever comment on one of your posts again. Have a nice life. By the way, I didn’t tell you what to do at all. I said what I thought of what you’d done. Also forbidden, I see.
So he voluntarily opted out of commenting any more on any of Stephanie’s posts but was still slapped with a ban.
[Stephanie: You said it two comments above: “Labour really knows how to work with other parties”, referring to my post. I am not the Labour Party, and you’ve commented here long enough to know that there are very simple rules about insinuating that this blog represents Labour. Pretending that you’ve been warned for “having an opinion” is just rubbish. But if you want to be a martyr so badly, take two weeks off.]
A lengthy discussion ensued, and later continued from Murray’s right of reply statement here. The Standard is not a happy place.
The Standard proclaims it is a forum for the Labour left, and most of the named author posts are from Labour party activists, but for some reason they are super sensitive about being seen to be associated with the Labour Party.
The more they make a fuss the more attention they bring to it.
Prentice in particular goes to great lengths to stomp on on any suggestion of any party influence in Standard posts. His super sensitivity is curious, as is their secrecy.
If The Standard openly and honestly promoted Labour Party interests, and if they applied even handed moderation on personal attacks and lies (that would cramp lprent’s style), they could be a great standard bearer for the Labour left.
But they choose to be anal and abusive. That’s a real shame.
Not all of them. Greg Presland and Anthony Robins do the bulk of the author attributed posts their at the moment and they mean well, do a fairly good job usually, and keep clear of most of the dirt. But their credibility is dragged down by the general culture of The Standard. That’s also a shame.
But they choose to operate within the culture and at least tacitly approve of it. Presland gets drawn into the double standards less than he used to still dabbles at times.
Prentice leads from the bottom and a number of other regulars lead frequent often abusive attacks on anyone and anything they disagree with or deem an enemy is some way, under Prentice’s example and protection.
And that’s the impression many casual visitors to The Standard will get of how the Labour left operates.
And as hard as he tries Prentice can’t separate the Labour left and the Labour Party in many people’s impressions.
They keep shitting in their own nest, led by Prentice with his verbal diarrhoea.
(And I’m aware that offering advice like this to The Standard is a ban-able offence – I’ve been banned for it before for doing it at The Standard but new rules of anywhere apply – so lprent may use this as an excuse to slap an extended ban on me. Funny in a sad sort of way.)