Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

REDD-Monitor’s new comments policy

Posted on 30 June 20137 November 2017

REDD-Monitor has a new comments policy. Please comply with these few guidelines when posting on REDD-Monitor.

When REDD-Monitor was set up in October 2008, there was no comments policy. I assumed that people commenting would be interested in debating the issues in a polite and reasonable manner.

The lack of policy worked more or less successfully for over two years (although occasionally things got a bit heated). But after one commenter attacked another on a post in early 2011, I decided that REDD-Monitor needed a comments policy, in the hope of preventing this sort of thing in future.

Since February 2011, REDD-Monitor has managed with the following comments policy:

REDD-Monitor welcomes debate, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the posts.

However, please try to avoid comments that:

  • are abusive
  • contain ad-hominem attacks
  • are off-topic
  • promote hate or violence
  • use foul language

REDD-Monitor reserves the right to edit or delete comments that do not comply with these five points.

Most of the time this worked, with a few exceptions.

In November 2012, I posted “Open thread: Improving REDD-Monitor”, which asked for suggestions about improving REDD-Monitor’s comments policy, among other things.

Enter the sock puppets. Over the past couple of weeks a large number of comments have come from the same IP address, but using different identities.

The vast majority of the comments on REDD-Monitor are constructive and useful (whether or not the commenter agrees with my point of view). However, to filter out the sock puppets and trolls, all comments on REDD-Monitor currently go into a moderation queue. If a comment is in breach of the comments policy it may be deleted. This does not mean that I am under any obligation to moderate comments or that I am liable in any way for what other people say. Your comments are your own responsibility.

The new comments policy is not set in stone and it will almost certainly change over time. This post is intended to facilitate discussion of the comments policy. So if you want to comment on the comments policy, do so here. I look forward to the discussion, but please keep it constructive! And please comply with the new comments policy.


PHOTO Credit: xkcd.
 

  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Facebook

1 thought on “REDD-Monitor’s new comments policy”

  1. Laura G says:
    1 July 2013 at 10:17 pm

    Great move @Chris. I support this policy.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • Chris Lang on Green IS Group: An FSC-certified Ponzi scheme
  • Tom Rayner on Green IS Group: An FSC-certified Ponzi scheme
  • Alan N. Connor on 30×30 target “not supported by the science”
  • Jeremy Sweet on 30×30 target “not supported by the science”
  • Chris Lang on Al Jazeera: Why are Tanzania’s Maasai being forced off their ancestral land?

Recent Posts

  • Statement from Kichwa Indigenous communities about the Cordillera Azul National Park REDD (PNCAZ) project: “No to the false climate solutions offered as ‘Nature Based Solutions’ and ‘carbon neutrality’ by oil and mining companies that pollute in other regions of the world, such as Shell, Total, BHP, and others, who buy carbon from the PNCAZ.”
  • 30×30 target “not supported by the science”
  • Aby L. Sène on “Land Grabs and Conservation Propaganda” in Africa
  • NIHT Inc’s misleading statements about the company’s REDD operations in Papua New Guinea
  • Global Forestry Investments scam: Andrew Skeene and Omari Bowers sentenced to 11 years in prison

Recent Comments

  • Chris Lang on Green IS Group: An FSC-certified Ponzi scheme
  • Tom Rayner on Green IS Group: An FSC-certified Ponzi scheme
  • Alan N. Connor on 30×30 target “not supported by the science”
  • Jeremy Sweet on 30×30 target “not supported by the science”
  • Chris Lang on Al Jazeera: Why are Tanzania’s Maasai being forced off their ancestral land?

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Cryptocurrency Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2022 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!