Is censorship ever a good thing?

[Badlad]

Peter.  Yes, thank you.  Like others you thought more have been removed than actually was.

Bograt.  The phrase was not deleted anonymously.  The reason was given and is still there at the bottom of the post.  it states, "uncalled for disparaging remark removed".  See page 4 about two thirds down of the topic in question.

 

[Hughie]

....... It indicates that differences in opinion over one subject needn't make people mortal enemies. This is how it should be.

Ian

+1. Sorry - I know it's bad form to do that. 

 

[bograt]

Bograt.  The phrase was not deleted anonymously.  The reason was given and is still there at the bottom of the post.  it states, "uncalled for disparaging remark removed".  See page 4 about two thirds down of the topic in question.

I apologise Badlad, at the end of a 2 mile corroded copper connection I cannot always keep up to date, WTF, am I really bothered? (not you, all the others)

 

[Mark Wright]

The three words that were removed from Grahams post were the first three words of his post and they were certainly not, as Peter suggests, part of an intelligent debate. They were written with the sole intention of winding up the previous poster. Totally uncalled for.

Mark

 

[Chunks]

Censorship, something even the BCA has been guilty of due to being lent on by regional councils/landowners in fairly recent times. Shocking really, though I wouldn't expect anything else from any other part of society, it's the pathetic society we live in that drives minor things like this.

As for censorship (moderation) on a forum, it needs to be done, to what level will always be a controversial subject! There have been many a debate and many a baiting on here (yes, I'm new but far from new, if you get my meaning) and I've often wondered why some things get moderated and some not. Maybe it's the whim of the mods, or their mood or availability on that particular day? Consistency is the key and that I have not seen, maybe things will change, although with a recent change of ownership this may take time.. Here's hoping.

 

[Peter Burgess]

The three words that were removed from Grahams post were the first three words of his post and they were certainly not, as Peter suggests, part of an intelligent debate. They were written with the sole intention of winding up the previous poster. Totally uncalled for.

Mark

OK I have no option but to comment again. I was informed otherwise (part of a post and a couple of replies was my information), so please allow me that much of a mistake for not checking. Looking for a vanished hole you are told exists in a very long thread is a bit of a non-starter. What I thought had disappeared is still there. Is that clear enough now?

 

[Les W]

Censorship, something even the BCA has been guilty of due to being lent on by regional councils/landowners in fairly recent times.

Really...
I've not seen any evidence of censorship from BCA. It tries to be an open organisation. All the minutes of meetings are published and all the meetings are open. It would be very difficult for BCA to censor anything.  :-\

 

[Chunks]

Censorship, something even the BCA has been guilty of due to being lent on by regional councils/landowners in fairly recent times.

Really...
I've not seen any evidence of censorship from BCA. It tries to be an open organisation. All the minutes of meetings are published and all the meetings are open. It would be very difficult for BCA to censor anything.  :-\

Effectively dictating what can and can't be posted on t'web by member clubs (due to issues revolving around access) counts as censorship in my eyes.

I was informed otherwise (part of a post and a couple of replies was my information), so please allow me that much of a mistake for not checking. Looking for a vanished hole you are told exists in a very long thread is a bit of a non-starter. What I thought had disappeared is still there. Is that clear enough now?

Precisely. I'd prefer it if mods blanked out offending words rather than removing sentences, paragraphs or just deleting whole posts, but that involves thought and effort.. It would make more sense, cause less aggravation and lead to less mis-information.

 

[Les W]

Censorship, something even the BCA has been guilty of due to being lent on by regional councils/landowners in fairly recent times.

Really...
I've not seen any evidence of censorship from BCA. It tries to be an open organisation. All the minutes of meetings are published and all the meetings are open. It would be very difficult for BCA to censor anything.  :-\

Effectively dictating what can and can't be posted on t'web by member clubs (due to issues revolving around access) counts as censorship in my eyes.

But BCA has no authority to prevent anybody from posting on their own web sites. The only site they have any control over is their own.
Censorship is when somebody prevents facts from being published. Pretty sure BCA aren't/couldn't be guilty of that as they have no control over others in that way. If somebody was asked not to publish then that is not censorship, it is for the individual to decide if the reasons for such a request are legitimate, and whether to comply or not.

 

[bograt]

Where the hell have BCA come into this? they have no influence on UKC?????

 

[Chunks]

Censorship, something even the BCA has been guilty of due to being lent on by regional councils/landowners in fairly recent times.

Really...
I've not seen any evidence of censorship from BCA. It tries to be an open organisation. All the minutes of meetings are published and all the meetings are open. It would be very difficult for BCA to censor anything.  :-\

Effectively dictating what can and can't be posted on t'web by member clubs (due to issues revolving around access) counts as censorship in my eyes.

But BCA has no authority to prevent anybody from posting on their own web sites. The only site they have any control over is their own.
Censorship is when somebody prevents facts from being published. Pretty sure BCA aren't/couldn't be guilty of that as they have no control over others in that way. If somebody was asked not to publish then that is not censorship, it is for the individual to decide if the reasons for such a request are legitimate, and whether to comply or not.

It might be helpful if you remove a certain trip report from your site (not the exact words, but sentiment the same), which implies if you don't do as suggested then the BCA exec (whom the matter was being referred to) might consider terminating your membership. Censorship, control, call it what you will.

Sorry bograt, I just provided an example of censorship in caving generally, which Les has decided to try and defend, off-topic I know, but that's the way a lot of threads go on here (and according to somebody/mod/admin years ago, it's acceptable and the way forums work).

 

[bograt]

No need to apologise Chunks, I like your way of thinking, are you Derbyshire based? if so, we can work together, if not, sort out your local caving council, you remind me of me many years ago, I could give you advise on weedling round the 'politicians' and getting what you want. (I've done it for Years!)

PM if you don't want it public.

 

[Cookie]

It might be helpful if you remove a certain trip report from your site

And what was in this trip report that upset the powers that be?

Don't be too specific otherwise your reply will have to be censored 

 

[Simon Wilson]

The three words that were removed from Grahams post were the first three words of his post and they were certainly not, as Peter suggests, part of an intelligent debate. They were written with the sole intention of winding up the previous poster. Totally uncalled for.

Mark

For Graham of all people to start this thread shows he has absolutely no shame.

One nasty, sneaky trick Graham has done to me twice is to make a really offensive post when he knows you're online then after you reply he quickly edits his post removing the offensive bit.

 

[Spike]

I have seen, at least twice in recent days, posts change without any "edit message" appearing at the bottom. This could be a forum fault or it could be something more untoward - I don't know. I vaguely recall one of these posts being one of Graham's but I've also indulged too much this evening to remember which posts they are. I appreciate this is unhelpful, but I'm on a limited data connection as well...

 

[droid]

[One nasty, sneaky trick Graham has done to me twice is to make a really offensive post when he knows you're online then after you reply he quickly edits his post removing the offensive bit.

So just quote the post in your reply.
He can't edit that.

I find it hard to believe you hadn't thought of that, Simon.... :-\

 

[Simon Wilson]

I hadn't thought of that then; it was a while back when I was even more inexperienced. It made me realize that there is skill involved in using this forum. And of course the most skillful user will be a person for whom it is his entire life.

 

[Pete K]

Censorship, something even the BCA has been guilty of due to being lent on by regional councils/landowners in fairly recent times.

Really...
I've not seen any evidence of censorship from BCA. It tries to be an open organisation. All the minutes of meetings are published and all the meetings are open. It would be very difficult for BCA to censor anything.  :-\

Apologies for the OT but this needed a quick reply.
I'm just stating facts here not opinion.
All minutes from comities meetings and sub committee meetings have to be approved for publishing by BCA exec before they can be released. This covers everything from Local Panel to NCP. The process is there to make sure nothing 'damaging' or 'libellous' (insert whatever term you choose) is made publicly available in the minutes. The potential for censorship is there.

Sorry, back on topic now....