Censorship, pre-moderation and forum rules, a few thoughts. Discuss!

[graham]

So, they still seem to thinking that editing other people's words without their consent is OK.

To be clear, I had more than one post edited and the post that I responded to - to which badlad refers - was also edited without the author's consent.

 

[droid]

No outrage here.

Just that there appears to be so little confidence in the New Direction that any discussion of it is frowned upon.

Pegasus believes that some refrain from contributing for fear of flaming.
I believe they refrain because they just don't like internet forums.

 

[MarkS]

My 2p worth is that I think the forum has improved on the whole with new ownership. In terms of censorship, specifically, it's a very difficult and necessarily subjective issue, so there will never be total agreement with exactly how things are done.

I think what it boils down to is that it's not hard to stay on the right side of the grey area between what's OK and what's not. If you choose to post something that could be interpreted as a personal insult or anything else that appears on the link above, then you take the risk that moderation may be the result.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Sometimes I don't know whether what I want to write might cross the line or not. It is sometimes difficult to tell. Accusations of bickering I think are sometimes too freely handed out but perhaps I am wrong. That's what I mean by it being difficult. If you err on the side of caution (i.e. decide not to post something for fear of censure) then is debate being stifled? It's almost like we need an individual credit rating - a level of confidence that in general what we post is OK. If you see your credit rating dropping it would be because the admins are taking a dimmer view of your posts. It's very difficult. And by credit rating I don't mean a "like" system which any member can mess about with.

 

[mudman]

I've been a long time lurker here although previously posted quite happily many years ago. A long non-caving stint meant that I didn't really feel that I could contribute much. Add to that my perception that the forum had become a bit cliquey with certain people willing to argue the toss (often quite rudely) ad infinitum without considering other opinions kept me out.
Now, along with a change in forum ownership, I am returning to being an active caver and will possibly contribute more in the future. I now find that the forum is a lot less of a clique and the irritating habits of some seem to have been suppressed somewhat which has improved the forum immensely. I for one am glad that Pegasus and Badlad have taken over and think they are doing a great job and long may it continue.

For those that are concerned about censorship or pre-moderation, I say get over yourselves. This is a public forum and the owners have an obligation to ensure that none of our, now many, limitations on free speech are  breeched and that standards of common decency are upheld.

Mod edits happen in all the forums I've belonged to and I do not consider it censorship, just ensuring that standards are upheld and that laws are not broken. Also, why do people think that the mod's should request their permission to remove something from their posts that they deem to have broken the rules?

If you are or have been pre-moderated, then there will be a reason for it and I hope you are informed of the reason and so will moderate your own style in the future, thus eliminating the need.

Anyway, I for one see no problem with the way the forum is being run and I believe this will be the view of all but a vocal minority who will quite likely never be satisfied.

 

[droid]

Sometimes I don't know whether what I want to write might cross the line or not.

'The line' appears to be any actual or inferred criticism of the forum, it's moderators or (especially) it's owners.

 

[mudman]

Sometimes I don't know whether what I want to write might cross the line or not.

'The line' appears to be any actual or inferred criticism of the forum, it's moderators or (especially) it's owners.

If that were the case, would this thread still exist?

 

[droid]

Some of the contributors are probably on borrowed time....

 

[Peter Burgess]

I would expect edited posts to be flagged up as having been modified as this reduces the legal implications for both sides. It is also a simple courtesy to the members. This seems to happen 99.9 percent of the time which is good. If a post is edited without any visible evidence that is a bit of a minefield! And it is simply one person's word against another, unless someone else spotted the original before it got changed. I am also aware of at least one occasion when a post was altered accidentally without a note being left. These things happen.

 

[Roger W]

I had somehow got the impression that it was unwarranted, heavy-handed and hurtful criticism of other people's posts that tended to bring down the righteous wrath of the moderators.

That and offensive personal remarks and the sort of silly bickering that can happen when two or three people take over a thread to hold a sort of private argument between themselves that would much better be done face to face with the help of a couple of pints or a set of duelling pistols...

But maybe I was wrong..?

 

[graham]

Mod edits happen in all the forums I've belonged to and I do not consider it censorship, just ensuring that standards are upheld and that laws are not broken. Also, why do people think that the mod's should request their permission to remove something from their posts that they deem to have broken the rules?

You miss the point. The owners have an absolute right to remove posts if they deem them to overstepped the rules, they are not obliged to publish anything they do not wish to. This point is not at issue, for me at any rate. My point is that they do not have the right to alter a post without my permission. This can drastically alter the meaning of what was said with, possibly, serious consequences.

If a post is 'wrong' for want of a better word, remove it and, preferably, leave a message to the effect that it has been removed and why. That's fine. That is not what happened to me.

 

[mudman]

Mod edits happen in all the forums I've belonged to and I do not consider it censorship, just ensuring that standards are upheld and that laws are not broken. Also, why do people think that the mod's should request their permission to remove something from their posts that they deem to have broken the rules?

You miss the point. The owners have an absolute right to remove posts if they deem them to overstepped the rules, they are not obliged to publish anything they do not wish to. This point is not at issue, for me at any rate. My point is that they do not have the right to alter a post without my permission. This can drastically alter the meaning of what was said with, possibly, serious consequences.

If a post is 'wrong' for want of a better word, remove it and, preferably, leave a message to the effect that it has been removed and why. That's fine. That is not what happened to me.

Well I'd like to see these other forums you must frequent where the awfully decent moderators respectfully ask your permission before they moderate your posts.

 

[graham]

Well I'd like to see these other forums you must frequent where the awfully decent moderators respectfully ask your permission before they moderate your posts.

Try the Guardian site for one. They never edit posts. They'll delete thousands, But.They.Do.Not.Edit.

 

[mudman]

Well I'd like to see these other forums you must frequent where the awfully decent moderators respectfully ask your permission before they moderate your posts.

Try the Guardian site for one. They never edit posts. They'll delete thousands, But.They.Do.Not.Edit.

Are you talking about a comments section or a forum?

Try the UK Contractors forum. They edit posts. They'll edit thousands.
Always. They. Will. Edit. When. Necessary.

 

[graham]

Try the UK Contractors forum. They edit posts. They'll edit thousands.
Always. They. Will. Edit. When. Necessary.

Do they state that they have done so? Do you know that when such a statement is not present that the post has not been edited?

Do they give the poster the option to have an edited post removed?

Openness and transparency and honesty.

 

[Laurie]

Anyway, I for one see no problem with the way the forum is being run and I believe this will be the view of all but a vocal minority who will quite likely never be satisfied.

I'm fairly sure you're right but we rarely see the material that's been removed or pre-edited.
Pity it can't be 'dumped into a 'read only' area but that would provoke arguments in the original post.
I'm a mod on another forum. Fortunately, most of my time is spent removing spam and the members are a pretty non-argumentative bunch.
It's a difficult job judging what's right and what's wrong.

 

[Roger W]

So if I make a useful and helpful contribution to this thread, but - being exasperated by the attitude or comments of one of the other contributors - "spoil" my post by including an unpleasant, uncalled-for and hurtful personal comment, what should the mods do?

They could delete the whole post - thereby depriving everyone of the priceless nuggets of wisdom in the inoffensive part of the post.

The could temporarily delete the post until they have had the opportunity to discuss any suitable editing with me.  That could take weeks if not months if I'm out of the country.  Might as well just delete the post, full stop.

They could edit the post, removing the offensive comment and adding the footnote "Edited by mods to remove offensive comment."  I would expect that such a footnote would appear, and I would expect in that situation to also receive a PM telling me what I had done wrong and what would happen to me if I did it again...  But the useful part of my post would still be there in the thread.

I suppose it could be possible for the removal of an offensive bit of my post to materially alter what I was trying to say.  I'm perfectly sure the mods and owners aren't the sort of people who would edit my post and deliberately change my meaning, even if they didn't happen to agree with what I was saying.  In that case I'm sure they would respond in their own names pointing out the flaws in my arguments and explaining why they disagreed. 

Again, I suppose it is possible for an overworked and generally harassed mod to edit out someone's offensive remarks, accidentally alter the meaning in doing so, and not notice that the meaning has been altered.  If it happens, surely you can say so - in another post on the thread (if you've not been banned, that is) explaining without rancour that the edit had changed the meaning of what you had said, and in a PM (possibly with rancour!) to the mod in question.  But if a modicum of civility and courtesy had been used in the first place, there would have been no need for the post to get edited at all.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Before anyone gets too worked up over what is being posted here, just look at the title of it - we are being invited to "discuss" - which we are, and doing so without rancour as far as I can tell.

 

[adam]

The could temporarily delete the post until they have had the opportunity to discuss any suitable editing with me. 

That would seem like the most sensible approach - return to sender with the offending words/comment pointed out and perhaps a suggested edit.

If they are out of the country, it won't get re-posted, tough luck - but that seems like a pretty unlikely scenario.

 

[graham]

Roger W is, of course, quite right in all that he says. Where, sadly, his courses of action fall down, is at the end. Sadly not only can civility and courtesy occasionally be absent but mods, being only human (honestly, they are) have their own unconscious biases. That is why the courses of action available to them must be clear and unambiguous if users are to have faith in them.

The fact is that posts (more than one) have been both edited and removed without acknowledgement. If this was not allowed to happen then we could all have more faith in the impartiality of the system as a whole.

Openness and transparency and honesty.

It should be possible to have confidence in the integrity of one's own contributions without being obliged to take screen grabs of them all, which is tedious in the extreme.