You didn't say anything when it was Peter McDonald's comments being deleted. And you certainly don't mind quietly deleting human beings from the Democratic Party when they don't agree with you.
You are a hypocrite.

Dave

Check you facts,

On March 14 a consistent commentor suggested that Peter was posting so often that it was becoming a distraction.He was respectful of Peter. Here's how he put it:

Gee, would removing these long, irrelevant comments be possible for the moderator?

And here's my reply.

"Peters posts don't bother me too much. I'm taking a let's live with it attitude.

Personally, I haven't even considered contacting the moderator."

I have also taken the time to talk to Peter on the phone and he has invited me to visit him at his home. I am taking him up on the offer.

As for your other claim, that I "quietly delete human beings from the Democratic party"

That's simply a lie--there is no other way to put it.

In light of your attempts to push me out of the Democratic Party, you might put it into a rational argument explaining your own words.

Interesting article in the New York Times this morning might add to this discussion
"A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/technology/09blog.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

"Is it too late to bring civility to the Web?"

"The conversational free-for-all on the Internet known as the blogosphere can be a prickly and unpleasant place. Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse."

"Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate."

"Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.[....]"

NH INSIDER,

Thanks, I just read the article. The biggest hurdle I see is deception. A blogger can delete strong arguments that undermine his/her position and claim that the commenter was harrassing. In the case I sighted that is what happened.

The blogger claimed that the anonymous commentor was a "party hack." That is a lie. I figured out who the commentor was very easily based on information he left. So did Mad Max. The commentor is a member of the House Ways and Means committee and his name is Mike.

All the blogger had to do was look it up.

So again, deleting will most likely lead to deceit unless there is a workable system of checks and balances.

Dave,

One theme at a time. The issue here is censorship and blogging standards.

I will honor your request elsewhere, and look forward to doing it just to set the record straight.

Chaz,

I think it's perfectly accpetable for a blogger to delete anonymous party-hack crap that is pure partisan spin. (NHInsider could get real busy as campaign season heats up in 2008.) Mike M, on the other hand, is a friggin' state rep, and I often find his posts stimulating if not persuasive. Dave never gave me a chance to read the posts in question, and for censoring a respected commenter Dave's credibility is suffering.

That's how things work in the marketplace of ideas. Ain't it beautiful?

MAD MAX

P.S. I hope you don't get too distracted by Dave -- you should read and comment on today's guest blog by Irena Goddard!

MAX,

Here's my problem with deleting "hacks"

Who will decide who is a hack?

To me silencing anonymous commentors would cause far more harm than good.

The two best commentors on this site are anonymous. ( yes that is a compliment)

But there is another factor that we all should examine.

Public figures don't want to use there names because (as we see every day) answering a blog can be like getting caught in a spiders web.

But public officials often have factual tid bits that we all would be unaware of if they didn't post them.

I'm thinking of people like "deep tonsils" who only post occasionally but have "insider" information that I like to hear.

I don't think the market here can correct itself without seriously damaging the entire purpose of blogs.

If we went too far into deleting I think I'll drop out and finish my book instead.

Max,

Just read Irena Goddards post and your comments. I'll post my thoughts for sure.

Chaz,

I am only deleting anonymous commenters who post very often and their comments show such an extreme partisan bias that it appears they are partisan hacks. I am only doing it on my blogs and if you or Mad Max don't like it I suggest you both cut that pain off from your life and stop reading my blog. I have absolutely no problem with that.
Everyone here is free to do the same. I am not pleading with anyone to read my posts, and I will not do so in the future. And I will not be harrassed by party hacks. Simple as that.
I haven't deleted any comments lately because I want the situation with Mike to calm down and hopefully progress. But if I am harrassed I will, and I certainly won't apologize to you.
In fact, you said you would like a disclaimer above every post saying I reserve the right to delete comments that are anonymous and seem like partisan attacks. I will consider it.

PS: But if you want to drop out and finish your book, don't let me stop you.

Dave,

I think the disclaimer would be appropriate.

This discussion goes far beyond your column. These issues are in today's New York Times
( as NH INSIDER pointed out) and I think that all of us involved here should take the time to think things through.

Chaz,

Not surprisingly, I think this is yet another case in which blog comments need to be governed minimally (as they are at NH Insider), and I like the way power is currently decentralized among the various bloggers.

NH INSIDER is the "laissez-faire" central authority which occasionally deletes posts which are blatantly irrelevant, but does not meddle beyond a very minimal level.

Each front page blogger has authority over his own blog, and each blogger is free to set his or her own standards for deletion. I suspect many readers think Dave got too aggressive and that perception compromises the integrity of his blog. It's a lesson to other bloggers, one which would never have occured if all power to delete was consolidated in one centralized source of authority.

Some very popular blogs have comment threads which are routinely hijacked so frequently that the sorts of conversations we have here are impossible. Those comment threads have to be moderated, and the moderators need to fairly apply objective deletion criteria in order to be considered credible by consumers.

If NH INSIDER ever turns into a Nazi on us, it wouldn't take much effort to set up a competing site with less repressive policies and put NHInsider.com out of business. Free market economists call this concept "creative destruction." In a healthy marketplace, bad businesses must be permitted to fail so they can be replaced by better businesses. The blog business has very small barriers to entry.

(And yes, this is a fundamental problem with socialism -- when government programs fail, we just double their budgets and increase the extent to which they are protected from exposure to private competition.)

So correct me if I'm wrong, but are you supporting anarchy on NH Insider? I'm supporting minimal government based on clearly articulated principles. :)

MAD MAX

MAX

I think I'm being libertarian about it. I know that one of the limitations to anarchy that you recognize is Fraud and Deception.

I hope we can leave deleting decisions up to individual bloggers but not the the extent that readers have no clue what is going on.

I also agree that markets often do correct themselves. I don't think we are as far apart on this as it may appear.

Regardless of the issue of market correction--everyone benefits if these things are examined before throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Chaz,

If I owned the site, I would issue a simple set of "suggested guidelines" to all front page bloggers. I would encourage that they allow vigorous debate, even by anonymous posters. I would explain that it only makes good sense to delete posts which obviously add nothing of any conceivable value to the comment thread, and that censoring aggressively is bad for business.

How do you like that approach? It's the same approach I'd recommend to the president who legalizes drugs -- use your office and your credibility to educate people and encourage them to make responsible choices.

On a related note, the governor could address the state of New Hampshire tonight, for free, on WMUR and explain why seatbelt use is such a good idea for citizens. Instead, we appear to be getting a primary enforcement seatbelt law. Why don't executives do a better job of recommending good behavior before calling in the guys with badges and guns?

MAD MAX

Chaz,

No offense, but this post seems like little more than a veiled attack on Dave.

Max,

I think you are on to something. I think too that all of us involved could make suggestions.

My first priority is to make sure that readers know the score.

Andy,

I brought up the idea of a disclaimer with Dave days ago. He ignored that idea and got sarcastic.

So as with any public interest campaign I took it to the next level.

I had also agreed to a meeting with him. I figured that amongst other things we could discuss the issue in private.

That was Saturday night. Sunday morning I awoke to see Dave attack me (and DFNH) publicly.

Regardless of any ulterior motives I think that this issue is important to all of us.

What are your opinions on censoring. Do you think that Mike M is a party hack?

Frankly I thought that line of reasoning was insulting to Mike. Do you think he was treated fairly?

I don't wish to be outed on this site. I try hard not to make things personal and try to add some ideas, suggestions and an ocasional opinion or two. I love to read everything all of you say but just hope we all do not get into attacking the messenger. I don't agree with everyone all the time nor do i agree with everyone some of the time, but I really enjoy all of the people who post. I wish Cullen would turn on the comments section of his releases. If there should be any rules on this board it should be that no one's blog should be free from comment, personal, hateful attacks on individuals should not be tolerated, unless of course they are geared toward Hillary..lol.

Chaz,

1. I thought you had sewn things up with Dave from skimming over the comments in that other post.

Doesn't matter if i'm right or wrong, it's the perception that matters in politics.

2. I don't remember what Mike Em said, nor do I really care. He's a big boy, as are you, as is Dave. You can all be responsible for your own words as far as I care.

3. Chaz, you can do what you want in regards with censorship. So can Dave, and so can I, but I consider having "a policy" probably to be overkill, although it might be an interesting debate.

4. I don't really care about drama on the internet anymore unless it includes more than 300 seemingly distinct and veriable people and the website that has over a million hits a day(see my blog entry from yesterday). Even then, it depends on my mood.

After facing hundreds of whiny transsexual communist nerds from what must be 10 or 20 countries by now, i've been somewhat desensitized.

Thanks for your thoughts Andy,

Again, whatever we do I think we owe it to readers to know whether or not we delete comments. That's a matter of trust.

I'm sticking with my policy of not deleting anyone. If it ever got to the point where my readers started complaining about too many "spam" posts I might reconsider. But I have no problem ignoring it for now.