Standard oversensitive to being criticised on an insensitive post

This should have just been me making a point at The Standard this morning, but showing signs of past intolerance of criticism they overreacted, threatened me with a ban, demoted the thread and then it seems banned me anyway because i couldn’t in response to lprent’s censorship (he may not have seen the post as it was originally so may have fired a broadside half cocked).

MickySavage posted Which National MP leaked Bridges’ expense details? In the main it was similar to my post on the same topic this morning, but it included a very inappropriate graphic that mocked mental health and named MPs – here’s the graphic, still on their tweet of the post:

I simply said “I think this is a poor taste post in the circumstances. Mental health is not a joke, nor should it be used for making cheap political shots.”

Te Reo Putake reacted:

Pete, with the exception of the ‘cluedo’ picture, there is nothing humorous in this post. No jokes are made in the post about the mental health issues of the MP concerned.

So, in short, your comment is in poor taste and you are using the matter to make a cheap political shot.

Poor form.

There was nothing political about my comment at all, and the cluedo picture was prominent (before any text) and that was worse than a cheap political shot.

But TRP was still overreacting:

Pete, the graphic has been around since the original leak. Posts have to illustrated with something and in the circumstances (a fast breaking news story about a mystery MP) it’s not inappropriate.

However, you didn’t specifically mention the graphic in your whinge. You specifically called out the post.

So you were having a crack at the author for your own beigely bland political purposes.

If I were you I’d just be grateful you were merely admonished, not banned. If you have anything to say about the substance of the story, have at it. If not, silence is golden.

The graphic was the most prominent part of the post, so yes, I called out the post. Perhaps I could have referred specifically to the graphic but it was fairly obvious.

I didn’t have a crack at the author at all, I didn’t refer to the author. I called out a crappy post.

And got threatened with a ban for it – that’s how The Standard used to operate when called out for crappy posts. Seems like now TRP is back they are back to message control.

MickySavage was initially defensive:

I thought about this.

First there is no proof that the person has mental health issues.

Second it is clearly a topic of public interest.

Third there have been numerous allegations from the right that Labour was responsible for the leak. Clearly this is not the case.

Fourth the emphasis is on disunity in National’s ranks and Bridges’ poor judgment.

Fifth I raise the possibility of canning the inquiry.

It has been made very clear through the day that it was predominantly a mental health issue. Otherwise his poinnts are fair given the issue and circumstances.

And he must have thought some more about it, because a wee while later the graphic was replaced and the post was amended:

Update:

I agree that mental health is an important issue so I am replacing the picture associated with the post.  The story is relevant however.

So my comment was effectively accepted as valid and appropriate action was taken. Good on MickySavage for that.

But then lprent got involved

[lprent: Just read through this thread. Basically TRP is correct. You are wrong. Shoving this silly diversion thread to the end of post. ]

He may not have seen the original graphic, but TRP was wrong and MickySavage eventually took the right action.

I don’t care about it being dropped to the bottom of the post, from here, and I don’t care if they ban me, but while i can and where I’ll can I won’t back down from giving my opinion on what i think are crappy aspects of posts or moderation.

And they also seem to have banned me without saying, because i haven’t been able to respond to lprent’s interfering (it had already been dealt with) and his typical overreaction.

49 Comments

  1. And while Robert’s commenting has improved a lot here and contributes well to discussions (usually) he still has his old habits at The Standard, taking a wee swipe:

    Robert Guyton 68.6
    24 August 2018 at 12:22 pm
    Go back to your panic room, Pete.

    I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t know I was prevented from responding there.

    But Robert, I can ask you here – do you think there was nothing wrong with the original graphic?

    • robertguyton

       /  August 24, 2018

      Pete, I noted they changed it, following your protest. I hadn’t taken any notice of it, to be frank. I also thought the ‘panic room’ comment was funny; sorry if you didn’t.

      • Blazer

         /  August 24, 2018

        hey bobbie appleseed will JAG be riding home from hospital with the sprogue in a carry bag..or is it all ..uphill..from here?

        • robertguyton

           /  August 24, 2018

          Have you seen those funky baby-trailers, Blazer? Womens’ Weekly-cute and super-safe!

          • Blazer

             /  August 24, 2018

            no I haven’t..I just go back to the Green paradigm..keep it simple..support crews,and all the rest..waste so much..energy!

    • Ray

       /  August 24, 2018

      The phrase “panic room” definitely has mental health connections and is just plain nasty when thrown into this debate, even in “fun”.
      http://www.thepanicroom.co.uk/coping-with-the-stigma-mental-health/

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  August 25, 2018

        No, Ray, a panic room is what many Americans have in their houses in case of armed intruders who are likely to be trigger-happy. They are secure and bullet-proof.

        They have nothing to do with mental health; they are not padded cells.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  August 25, 2018

          We are both right; you with ‘The Panic Room’ and me with ‘a panic room’ (which is also used for sheltering from tornadoes etc) Panic rooms came before The Panic Room.

  2. Grantoc’s comment got shunted down with the thread, but it’s worth repeating here:

    Micky

    You need to be careful with your comments on this matter.

    You say ” there is no proof that the person has mental health issues”. Equally there is no proof that the person doesn’t have mental health issues.

    Given the sensitivities of mental health at this moment; is it not better to seriously and sensitively check out the veracity of the mental health claim first, before taking any other position on this issue.

    Secondly there are claims (Soper) that the individual concerned is not a National party MP. This also awaits verification.

    You would be better advised to see where the cards lie before you rush to any sort of judgement on this matter.

    You could try showing some compassion for what may be a ‘sick’ individual.

    I agree with you though that there is very chance that the inquiry will be cancelled.

    The mob didn’t pile into him, did you TRP, Robert.

    • robertguyton

       /  August 24, 2018

      I never “pile in”, Pete; I think of my actions more as those of a picador than a mobster. Mostly I like to “pic” for humour’s sake but I usually have the intention to “un-pick” the complexities of issues and understand what’s really going on, as I believe you do. I’m flippant in my approach, where you are overly sincere/pompous (just teasing).

      • I never “pile in

        I’ve seen you doing it often enough, and that’s what you did here. Trying to pass it off as ‘funny’ doesn’t get you a pass on it.

        • robertguyton

           /  August 25, 2018

          Hard to pin down, that “humour” thing.

      • Ray

         /  August 24, 2018

        30 replies on one posting Robert, that is not the actions of a picador p, who only gets three hit per bull, more the actions of an overexcited diversion squirrel .

        • Blazer

           /  August 24, 2018

          or a sheep..that is easily..led. 😉

        • robertguyton

           /  August 25, 2018

          Thanks for counting Ray – I thoroughly enjoyed the flurry of supposition around Bridges’ dilemma and the revelation that it was one of his own. I think Gerry Brownlee’s “glum face” during announcement was what sent me off squirrelling.

  3. Blazer

     /  August 24, 2018

    why oh why do you keep going back for more?

    Is it worth a..thread?

    • robertguyton

       /  August 24, 2018

      I reckon it really…isn’t. Knowing when to let sleeping dogs lie’s the trick…

    • It’s worth checking in every now and again to see if they’re still anal about being criticised or held to account. Unfortunately it’s a common tendency of political activists and political blogs to try to control their own critical messages by censoring alternative opinions. It’s a habit that has held the Standard back from being a serious political forum for years. They keep reverting to message control and attack the messenger ‘moderation’.

  4. robertguyton

     /  August 24, 2018

    Stone the crows, Pete; you’ve used the offensive-to-Pete graphic!!
    Are you mad???
    🙂

    • In a very different context.

      • Hoist by your own petard there, Pete! If the graphic was offensive at TS, it’s offensive here.

        You weren’t threatened with a ban by anyone, though I did point out attacking an author can lead to that. And yes, attacking the post is attacking the author. As far as I know, you’re not banned, though you may be in pre-mod, which is where comments from commenters who don’t get the hint are held till they are approved. I’ll check later (the site is down at the moment – tech issues).

        For the record, I asked commenters to show compassion and empathy in their comments. It’s terrific that the vast majority did so.

        • Gezza

           /  August 25, 2018

          Here you can attack the author. You don’t get a ban.

          • robertguyton

             /  August 25, 2018

            Maybe not a ban, but you do get a bit of a thrashing with a beige dishcloth.

          • Conspiratoor

             /  August 25, 2018

            Not an apples for apples. This blog encourages a diversity of views even extending some leniency to a lunatic fringe. The standard doesnt. Folks there have a low threshold for dissenting opinion due to an agenda which they make no attempt to hide. You want to hide behind a shield of sanctimony and nit pick you can fuck off. Fairynuff in my view

            • Gezza

               /  August 25, 2018

              Shuddup.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  August 25, 2018

              Oops, looks like you excited our lunatic fringe, C. And distracted G from his nappy changing.

            • robertguyton

               /  August 25, 2018

              “You want to hide behind a shield of sanctimony and nit pick you can fuck off. Fairynuff in my view”
              Elegantly expressed, Conspiratoor.

            • robertguyton

               /  August 25, 2018

              Elegantly expressed, Gezza (not at all…infantile).

            • Gezza

               /  August 25, 2018

              c and I have a comms code.
              You wouldn’t understand.

        • “If the graphic was offensive at TS, it’s offensive here. ”

          Wrong. You’ve used it before at TS. The problem was the context it was used in yesterday.

          “You weren’t threatened with a ban by anyone, though I did point out attacking an author can lead to that.”

          That was a veiled threat, given the history of banning at TS.

          I didn’t attack any author, I didn’t address an author at all. If criticising a post is attacking an author then that would rule out most worthwhile comments. It’s a nonsense claim that critising a post is attacking an author. You seem to have learned to follow weka’s example of no criticism allowed.

          I tried several times to respond to attacks on me yesterday but wasn’t able to do so.

          • Ah, goalpost shifting. Always a sign of a losing argument. Attacking and criticizing are not the same thing. Still, I love your use of the ‘I think my argument is so powerful that it’s not necessary to talk about it’ defence of why you didn’t actually identify the graphic as the problem and instead said it was the post.

            I’ve already explained why your comments may have been held up, Pete. Or perhaps TS has a boredom filter? Either way, I’ll let you know what’s up. Nobody has been banned for ages, btw. Most commenters can take a hint.

            • robertguyton

               /  August 25, 2018

              “Or perhaps TS has a boredom filter?”
              That’s pretty funny. Mind you, you’ll need a sense of humour to get it.

            • “Attacking and criticizing are not the same thing”

              A funny thing for you to say given how confused you were about them yesterday. And now.

              The graphic was the most prominent part of the post, to casual observers at least. Do you see graphics that lead a post as not being a part of the post?

              I thought it was fairly obvious what the problem was. Whoever decided to replace the graphic part of the post seems to have recognised that easily enough.

            • robertguyton

               /  August 25, 2018

              “to casual observers at least”
              You’re a “casual observer” at The Standard, Pete?
              Perhaps you should take Conspiratoors advice…

        • “which is where comments from commenters who don’t get the hint are held till they are approved”

          What hint did I miss? That The standard is still hostile to a bit of reasonably expressed criticism?

          • robertguyton

             /  August 25, 2018

            Pete; I reckon you shouldn’t lock horns with te reo putake, even on your home ground.

            • You really don’t get how things work here?

              TRP has ‘locked horns’ here before, even had guest posts. lprent has been here to ‘lock horns’. They have even been free to criticise authors of posts without risk of being banned.

            • robertguyton

               /  August 25, 2018

              I’ll bet they gave you a run for your money, Pete!

            • PDB

               /  August 25, 2018

              Guyton: “Pete; I reckon you shouldn’t lock horns with te reo putake, even on your home ground.”

              Luckily stupidity is only contagious at the Standard.

            • robertguyton

               /  August 25, 2018

              Good on you for having a go, PDB!

            • PDB

               /  August 25, 2018

              Means a lot coming from the master Robert…

          • robertguyton

             /  August 25, 2018

            “What hint did I miss?”
            Classic!!

            • Ray

               /  August 25, 2018

              You are way better than this Robert, suddenly you are like a little kid just because one of the “big boys” from the Standard turns up.
              I am quite sure if you had used your “joke ” about a panic room against one of the standardists big boys over there you would have been hounded out on mental health insensitivity grounds post haste.

  5. I am less than convinced about the validity of the mental health claim. Anonymity and the choice of a burner text just adds to the intrigue and raises more questions than answers.
    In that context, I find the graphic amusing, thanks for sharing.

  6. bjoneskiwi

     /  August 25, 2018

    Looks like The Standard has crashed under the weight of its own sensitivity, been down since the early hours, not a good advert for the worlds greatest sysop!