I've done some research on Pynchme's complaints. In reading her comments you should bear in mind that Pynchme has never been suspended and only once had a comment deleted. That comment was abusive of Antiseptic who has just posted on this thread to say that he is taking his bat and ball home because I suspended him for an abusive comment. Antiseptic is one of the "petals" that Pynchme has accused me of protecting.

Pynchme has only ever once recommended a comment for deletion in the four and a half years that she has been on the site. That comment was deleted.

Jon J, I think you should reveal that you are a pro-atheist campaigner before you criticise me for publishing people who have religious views. I think you will find that they are published on this site in smaller numbers than their proportion in the total population, and it's reasonable they get a say. I published two pro-AGW pieces this morning, both from academics. There's one from a priest on euthanasia which is in response to accusations about Christians and their views on euthanasia.

No-one will get suspended for making a general comment about moderation, but if, like Pynchme they start referring to specific decisions then they may well run into trouble. The reason for the suspension is that if you have rules and they are to mean anything there have to be penalties for breaking them. I also don't have unlimited time to keep removing posts - easier to remove posters for a time until they cool down.

There are some fine lines. I hope pynchme, J Parker, mikk and Antiseptic don't leave OLO. They make great contributions.

I agree the religious agendas are very influential on this site as are the AGW opponents but the opportunities are there for others to put their view. I had hoped Clive Hamilton might submit another article (not necessarily about Climate Change) but that does not appear to be on the cards. One way to offset the Conservative lean to the site is to submit articles. GY publishes a wide variety.

Sometimes as humans are apt, we see the harshness of moderation according to where we sit on the ideological spectrum, if those with similar worldviews are moderated it is emphasised whereas those with opposing views may not hit the personal radar. In the same way that the ABC is criticised for being left wing and right wing by various people depending if their fave politician has just been grilled by Kerry O'Brien.

Many of the articles with a religious agenda invite strong comment and I find it is usually the religious author that cops most of the flak. As for AGW - well that is the usual minefield.

Not every moderating decision will be on the mark, nor will everyone ever agree, so ultimately someone has to take responsibility. That is the moderator's job.

GY is human like the rest of us, and perhaps some of the feedback made on this thread will give pause for thought.

I do wonder at some comments that remain at times, like calling homosexuals perverts or pedophiles but admittedley I have not pressed the report button mainly due to a commitment not to oppress free speech, but that can go too far if criticism becomes villification. There is a difference. But maybe those comments were moderated and I missed it.

J Parker - Facts - to the contrary, OLO has significantly progressed in leaps and bounds during 2010, with an influx of both new members signing up and contributing coupled with participants commenting for the first time on issues after years not actively participating.

Every Australian viewpoint is valuable, whether or not we agree or disagree.

In regards to moderation, one needs to respect the fact that OLO has given every Australian magnificent opportunities to learn from other people and to be heard.

If critics do not understand the time energy and personal sacrifices Moderators and OLO Staff have made in order for OLO to exist, you put your hands up and volunteer to become moderators and experience the obviously complex and difficult task.

Graham gave people the opportunity for feedback re; moderation and the golden opportunity seeking nominees for moderators a while back. I noted that the long term regular contributors provided feeback. Did you provide feedback at the time J Parker?

It is often the critics who sit back, fire shots and yet not bother about sacrificing their own time to assist vehicles they have used for years.

Reflect upon the many hours OLO staff have sacrificed for YOU

Antiseptic, are you claiming Graham Young has not had the other side of the story in thread form up, too?
Not so, by my recollection, it's one of these issues that's perennial to these sites over long times.
Why pick on him because he allowed more than one take on the subject?
Agree with your last point tho, both groups are energetic activists in seeking attention to their views on life and that's ok, so long as one view or other isn't arbitrarily snuffed for another, without even the politeness of consideration for it, let alone substantial reason for its ignoring.
We'd probably agree that Meulenberg's tome was naive, to say the least.
I thought people did well enough dealing with it for themselves in the thread comments, although the more hillbilly stuff I could have done without.

Graham,

I have just read your article and I am absolutely appalled that a democratic country such as Australia can allow such a thing to happen. I strongly believe in the freedom of speech it is a fundamental right and it amazes me how many people parrot my words but when they read something unpalatable to them, freedom of speech suddenly becomes selective.

I am a strong proponent of gay rights though I'm not gay myself. I had a problem some years back when I opened a gay dating agency. I didn't realise that my landlord was a police union and they attempted (and succeeded) in closing me down though nothing untoward occurred on my premises.

One of my members complained to A Current Affair and told them there might be an interesting story in it. I was interviewed and appeared on ACA defending my rights to conduct any type of legal business that I deemed fit. I don't know anybody at channel 9 today as I don't watch TV anymore but if you like I will approach them and suggest there may be a story there for them.

What ANZ and IBM are doing to ONO is plain and simple censorship and should not be tolerated by anyone. I don't think that ANZ or IBM would want to appear on ACA to defend their actions and at least ONO would receive substantial free advertising and support from concerned citizens.

Hang in there Graham, by fighting for what is right you are not only fighting for ONO but for any free thinking organizations that depend on advertising dollars for their survival. What kind of society are we when organizations that encourage free and open debate feel it necessary to tip toe around controversial and important issues?

graham why is the account with anz?