DrillOrDrop.com

New year, new comment policy

thank-you-for-speaking-out-edited

DrillOrDrop always welcomes comments. One aim of the site is to foster constructive debate about fracking and the onshore oil and gas industry.

The writers value highly the expertise and commitment of everyone who comments.

However, there is a risk that the useful content of the comment pages is becoming lost among off-topic discussion or personal remarks.

To address this, from today, I will remove or edit new comments that do not contribute to the debate on that stream.

It is difficult to create a forum that balances robust discussion with safe, legal and useful content. I apologise in advance if you think your post has been removed unfairly.

You can see more details of our Comments policy here

Comment display

The way comments are displayed has also changed. On pages with a large number of comments, older threads will no longer appear at the top of the comment list.  They will still be accessible from the “Older comments” link at the bottom of the page.

DrillOrDrop moderator

21 replies »

    • Scrambling to find ways to remove dissenting opinions, it would appear! Wide latitude in deciding what “contributes” to a stream, of course. Hmmmmm, I just wonder how that will work out. LOL

      The timing is uncanny. First the Yorkshire decision. Then the Secty of State decision. Then the appeal decision. Then the ASA FoE scandal. Then the FoE self-destructing public denial of facts. Now the uncovering of Russian funding to promote anti-frack propaganda. The anti-frackers are reeling. No, let me correct that statement. The anti-frack movement has become permanently impaired. It is only natural that DrillorDrop would lash out at the pro-fracking crowd this way at this moment. Alas, it will not change the facts.

      Take my comments down, Paul. Take all of them down if you like. I don’t mind. There are plenty of other places where I can post and have a greater educational impact on the public.

      ;o)

      • I watched a video recently of a land owner in USA who’s land and house was fracked beneath by a fracking company, I forget which one, one of the track company employees walked up the drive and urinated in full view of the house. It is not just the insult of the complete disregard for a persons property, it is the attitude of contempt by the fracking operators that seems to accompany it. I am not sure of the cause of this attitude. I sometimes wonder if there is some element of psychology in some deeper aspect of human nature involved. Historically there is some evidence to suggest that some forces are awakened in human nature with a perceived dominance of force over other humans. There was certain unaccountable reports of apparently rational people becoming transformed into aggressively extremist activity in the presence of a weakened captive or submissive opponent. This seems to be associated into what can only be described as a sort of adrenalin “high” which blots out basic human regard for others and allows the most inhumane acts to take place. People who have suffered from this syndrome cannot understand why they did what they did, the trigger seems to be an apparently submissive perceived opponent. This syndrome also appears in places like abbatoirs and hunting activities.
        I don’t think anyone is trying to censor you hballpeeny, just regulate the degree and prevalence of personal invective and off subject rhetoric. All though I appreciate I have been none too perfect myself, I have found, and said so before, that it wastes valuable time and space, so any move, as Paul is doing to regulate that must be a positive move, and perhaps will reduce the syndrome I mention here. If we can spend less time defending ourselves and more time debating this contentious subject, it can only be a good thing. We are complex beings perhaps some of our deep psychological aspects are none too civilised, I don’t exclude myself from criticism. So any move to regulate such effects can surely only be a good thing?
        Sorry if this is off subject Paul, I don’t mean to criticise anyone other than myself and just stand back a moment.

    • It goes on the number of comments, Phil. Once there are 15 “top level” comments in response to a post, they are moved into “Older comments”, meaning that newer ones will be easy to find. Only the most-commented on posts are likely to be affected.

  1. Thankyou for that Ruth and Paul, tho I see a completely off topic post from Phil C got through!! Now perhaps it will be worth posting. Looking forward to my guest post publication, with the ASA complaint details. Lets see if that results in any personal attack! It shouldn’t as its just science and evidence.

    • Actually it is entirely on topic, which is the need for a change in presentation and moderation. If you read it you would see that the post showed one of the unfortunate effects of polarised opinion which leads to a need amongst certain representatives of a point of view to play the man, not the ball. If you would like to read further on that, there is an excellent book by Philip Zimbardo “The Lucifer Effect” Look at almost any post on this host website, including mine, and you will see elements of that syndrome clearly illustrated. It was worth saying and it should give us all pause for thought, myself included.

    • We’re looking forward to it too Ken. I am sure it will receive the appropriate attention and will be subjected to the scrutiny that I’m sure you would expect and enjoy.

      • not sure why you would want to post

        you’ve won, the government has said fracking can go ahead

        all you have to do is sit back and wait for the price of gas to fall dramatically and for there to be no environmental problems to prove you were right all along

        even if you got it wrong and and there are massive problems you won’t need to worry because you don’t live in the desolate north

        what does it matter what the asa says about anything

  2. It is a general aspect of life today PhilC, that many people feel it is their “right” to be antisocial, simply fueled by their view of what “human rights” are.
    Whether it be trespass, squatting, blocking other peoples free movement along roads, or peeing on other peoples property, it happens. Not sure that oil workers are any more of a problem than what you might see on a building site, or late at night in a city centre. It might just be that there are people present filming every little activity for their own agenda in some situations??

    • I’m not sure that its a human rights issue, more that as we as a society are going through some of the the most far reaching series of events in recent history. Political, social, financial, religious, economic differences, far from being integrated into our society, are actually dividing us and polarising us from each other. I suspect there are elements that wish to keep pushing that divisiveness at every opportunity as keeping us divided and fighting amongst each other, pro and anti fracking for example, it suits certain agendas not to have a consensus of opinion allowed in any forum. At the same time, there are equal and opposite elements that are trying to bind us together into a globalist society. I’m not being partisan on which is better or worse than the other, since both sides seem to be using at the very least verbal violence and propaganda and disinformation to achieve one or more of their goals. Personally i am not trusting of either movement.
      If you step outside of that for a moment, it is possible to see how this effects debate in these posts and has come to such a state that having to change how posts are moderated and portrayed becomes inevitable, simply to return some sort of order to the melee.
      How successful that will be remains to be seen, but perhaps if we were all to work towards that it would make the process, which is now in place, easier for all of us.

  3. Absolutely welcome this. Unfortunately there are always that element in society that simply cannot be left unregulated. Looking forward to a lucrative 2017.

  4. Good Call. Thanks Paul and Ruth. Though I can see that such filtering will not be without its issues. It would be interesting to hear from your side (over time) what you think those issues are.

    If you can help set a standard, or an agreeable code of conduct for debate (and let’s face it these are serious issues here) without alienating contributors, that will be great. I seldom see threads around complex issues that don’t quickly degenerate into puerile neanderthal-like rock hurling abuse. With the whole world now waking up to the usefulness of global, instant networking, the sooner we get past these baby steps and ‘terrible twos tantrums’ the better.

  5. I think the new editorial policy is to be welcomed.

    Whatever your views, 2017 will see this debate out of the “BoatyMcBoatface” era, and with serious players like Ineos now about to start activity I would fear a total meltdown on these pages reacting to a much more technically, economically literate, organised “opponent” that represents major taxation income to the UK government. Unite have found they don’t roll over.

    The existing players have been represented as the evil of “Big Oil”. I did comment a short while ago that bigger fish were waiting in the shadows and was accused of threatening behaviour! As this unfolds, much worse would undoubtedly have followed, so I welcome the control.

Leave a Reply to Ken Wilkinson Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.