• Great articles on other sites
  • RSS Great articles on other sites

  • Delimiter

    Comments policy

    The following article was published on Friday 9 March 2012, as an explanation of Delimiter’s comments policy.


    Hi everyone, hope your Friday is going well! Unfortunately I have been working hard this afternoon, but I am planning to knock off shortly for a beer ;)

    Anyway, before I do that, I just wanted to post a quick note letting you know that I have updated Delimiter’s official comments policy. In the past we’ve had a fairly loose policy. We’re not a completely open forum, but as long as people kept their comments polite, I have been happy to let the discussion range quite freely. As of today, however that, that policy is changing. From today, new restrictions will apply.

    Firstly, as before, comments must be more or less ‘polite’, as measured by Australian social standards. This doesn’t mean you need to maintain the sort of conversation level you would use with your mother. It just basically means don’t be rude to other commenters. You may disagree with their opinions, but you should respect their right to hold them. This rule especially applies to the treatment of article authors, who deserve a significant amount of respect for putting their writing into the public domain.

    Secondly, from today, I am imposing a second condition: Comments on Delimiter must not harm the discussion. This sounds a bit nebulous. So what does it really mean? “Harming the discussion” is a blanket term which covers quite a few ideas. For example, it may cover, but not be limited to, the following examples:

    • Obvious and repetitive trolling to get a reaction (for example: “All Apple products suck”)
    • Comments which might be defamatory in nature or breach copyright (for example: “Joe Bloggs is corrupt”)
    • Comments which display a lack of rationality or reasonableness. For example, a number of commenters on Delimiter over the past year have engaged in the debate, but consistently avoided acknowledging substantive issues raised by other commenters in relation to their argument. Instead, they have deliberately diverted the discussion down another path, annoying many other commenters.
    • Comments which inject demonstrably false information into the debate (for example: “Fibre broadband only offers speeds up to 50Mbps”). Often I will leave these be, if other readers correct the record. But if it’s done consistently, it’s a problem.
    • Comments which constantly change the subject to off-topic subjects, often in self-promoting areas. Occasional off-topic stuff is completely fine, but if commenters are constantly trying to push an agenda not related to the current topic of discussion, that will become a problem.
    • Comments which are highly self-promoting, especially if they don’t disclose conflicts of interest (for example, on a cloud computing thread, by someone who works for ABC Company: “ABC Company is the only company which can solve this problem”)

    I realise the term “harming the discussion” is a bit vague, and that I haven’t precisely defined all of the cases in which it will be used here. However, I am completely fine with that. The reason for that is that Delimiter is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship run by one person (myself), and I (and other moderators from time to time) will decide whether the term applies to any given situation.

    99 percent of commenters on Delimiter are rational human beings with a solid technical understanding who are genuinely interested in debating the issues raised through our articles. These people will be almost universally unaffected by the new comments policy as outlined above. This is because 99 percent of the comments on Delimiter already meet these guidelines.

    However, over the past year, a small number of rogue commenters have repeatedly sabotaged good discussions on Delimiter and alienated other readers, leading to a flood of complaints about them. It is this one percent of commenters which the new policy aims to outlaw — because they are actively harming positive discussion on the site.

    And outlawed they will be.

    A number of readers have asked me recently what my policy is on suspending or banning commenters whose posts repeatedly harm the discussion on the site. To make it clear, if I see a comment on the site which is either impolite or harms the discussion, I will instantly delete that comment or at best partially censor it, if there is value in the rest of the comment. If I see that same commenter post two or three such comments, I will ban them for a period of a week from the site. If they infringe the policy after that time, I will ban them for good. Once a year (on December 31), I will clear the list of banned commenters and let them onto the site again. As a sign of goodwill, today I will clear the list so that everyone is allowed back on the site.

    If you feel your comment has been unfairly deleted or you have been unfairly banned, your remedy is easy: Contact me directly about it using a social network such as Twitter, Facebook or Google+. I will reconsider the case, especially if you can get other readers to agree with you that the deletion or banning is unfair.

    I want to emphasise that I don’t expect this new policy to affect the majority of readers — in fact, I anticipate that 99 percent of comments will be completely fine. It is aimed at promoting positive, rational and useful discussion on Delimiter. And I will in fact only rarely use it. I will in fact actually proactivly ignore some ad-hoc breaches of the policy if I think the commenter concerned is acting innocently. But one key factor is consistency — if I see people consistently harming the discussion, I will stop them.

    I hope all this makes sense! As always, post your comments below. And now, it’s time for Friday afternoon beer ;)

    Renai LeMay
    Editor + Publisher, Delimiter

    Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:


  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp facepalm2

      If you have even a skin deep awareness of the structure of Australia’s superannuation industry, you’ll be aware that much of the underlying infrastructure used by many of the nation’s major funds is provided by a centralised group, Superpartners. One of the group’s main projects in recent years has been to dramatically update and modernise its IT platform — its version of a core banking platform overhaul. Unfortunately, the $250 million project has not precisely been going well.

    • Qld’s Grant joins analyst firm IBRS peter-grant

      This week it emerged that Peter Grant, the two-time former Queensland Whole of Government CIO (pictured), has joined well-regarded analyst firm Intelligent Business Research Services (IBRS). We’ve long had a high regard for IBRS, and so it’s fantastic to see such an experienced executive join its ranks.

    • Westpac dumps desk phones for Samsung Android mobiles samsung-galaxy-ace-3

      The era of troublesome desk phones tied to physical locations is gradually coming to an end in many workplaces, with mobile phones becoming increasingly popular as organisations’ main method of voice telecommunications. But some groups are more advanced than others when it comes to adoption of the trend. One of those is Westpac.

    • Ministers’ cloud approval lasted just a year reverse

      Remember how twelve months ago, the Federal Government released a new cloud computing security and privacy directive which required departments and agencies to explicitly acquire the approval of the Attorney-General and the relevant portfolio minister before government data containing private information could be stored in offshore facilities? Remember how the policy was strongly criticised by Microsoft, Government CIOs and Delimiter? Well, it looks like the policy is about to be reversed.

    • WA Govt can’t fund school IT upgrades oops key

      In news from The Department of Disturbing Facts, iTNews revealed late last week that Western Australia’s Department of Education has run out of money halfway through the deployment of new fundamental IT infrastructure to the state’s schools.

    • Turnbull outlines Govt ICT vision turnbull-5

      Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has published an extensive article arguing that the Federal Government needed to do a better job of connecting with Australians via digital channels and that public sector IT projects needn’t cost the huge amounts that some have in the past.

    • NZ Govt pushes hard into cloud zealand

      New Zealand’s national Government announced a whole of government contract this morning for what it terms ‘Office Productivity as a Service’ services. This includes email and calendaring services, as well as file-sharing, mobility, instant messaging and collaboration services. The contract complements two existing contracts — Desktop as a Service and Enterprise Content Management as a Service.

    • CommBank reveals Harte’s replacement whiteing

      The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has promoted an internal executive who joined the bank in September after a lengthy career at petroleum giant VP and IT services group Accenture to replace its outgoing chief information officer Michael Harte, who announced in early May that he would leave the bank.

    • Jeff Smith quits Suncorp for IBM jeffsmith4

      Second-tier Australian bank and financial services group Suncorp today announced that its long-serving top technology executive Jeff Smith would leave to take up a senior role with IBM in the United States, in an announcement which marks the end of an era for the nation’s banking IT sector.

    • Small business missing the mobile, social, cloud revolution iphone-stock

      Most companies that live and breathe the online revolution are not tech startups, but smart smaller firms that use online tools to run their core business better: to cut costs, reach customers and suppliers, innovate and get more control. Many others, however, are falling behind, according to a new Grattan Institute discussion paper.