It has been a common complaint in the RHP forums that the removal of posts/threads here sometimes constitutes a violation of the right to freedom of speech. While i disagree with some of the decisions made by the mods, i think this is misguided. the right to freedom of speech does not mean that everything submitted for publication in a given arena must be granted publication. for example, i can send a letter to the editor of a newspaper. it is at the editor's discretion whether to publish it. if he/she chooses not to, does it mean my right to freedom of speech has been violated? i think not. the internet works slightly differently. posts appear without passing through an editorial filter. the role the mods play is editor-after-the-fact. but that does not change the general principle. just as the editor of a newspaper has the job of deciding what appears and what does not, so do the mods. if anything, standards here are much more lax than at a newspaper - imagine a newspaper printing some of the drivel that appears here. there might under some circumstances be a breech of the right to freedom of speech if there was a systematic attempt to suppress the appearance of particular views in any medium whatsoever, but when the effort is restricted to a single publication, i don't think this is the case.
Originally posted by dfm65Nice knocking down of a strawman. I've addressed this point sooooooo many times that I won't make a full reply as it would be redundant but these are forums created to exchange views and information - that is their purpose. Restricting speech contradicts the basic purposes of the Forums and is inconsistent with their existence. This is not "misguided"; this is simple logic. Free speech has intrinsic value and worth so moderation should be minimal in these forums.
It has been a common complaint in the RHP forums that the removal of posts/threads here sometimes constitutes a violation of the right to freedom of speech. While i disagree with some of the decisions made by the mods, i think this is misguided. the right to freedom of speech does not mean that everything submitted for publication in a given arena must be gran ...[text shortened]... ver, but when the effort is restricted to a single publication, i don't think this is the case.
Originally posted by no1marauderOK. I understand if you don't want to get into this again, but what if by not having a system of moderation the actions of certain users limit the free speech of others? For example, if people are allowed to run free and be as abusive as they like they will prevent other users from expressing themselves for fear of the scathing response. I guess an analogy could be that you can either let a garden grow wild and let the weeds choke many of the plants, or you can remove the weeds and by doing so get more plants growing (no offense intended to anyone who thinks they've just been called a weed) .
Nice knocking down of a strawman. I've addressed this point sooooooo many times that I won't make a full reply as it would be redundant but these are forums created to exchange views and information - that is their purpose. Restricting speech contradicts the basic purposes of the Forums and is inconsistent with their existence. This is not "mis ...[text shortened]... ogic. Free speech has intrinsic value and worth so moderation should be minimal in these forums.
I'm not sure that there is a right to free speech that can be applied to these forums. But I do agree that people should be encouraged to voice their opinions on the assorted topics that inevitably come up for discussion, and I think that the several groupings of these forums do facilitate that. There is an important distinction, however, between encouraging the exchange of ideas, and allowing offensive posts to run amok. So then, the obvious question is: Offensive in who's opinion? The administrators of this site have appointed a moderation team, and have entrusted them with those determinations. You can disagree as much as you want with how they select a post for moderation, but it is their decision. This is, after all, a community comprised of it's members. And as with all communities, there are standards of decorum. Not everyone agrees with all the rules that their society places on them, but they are still held to the standards set by those rules. This may seem like an over-simplification to some of you, particularly the more erudite and vocal, but in my opinion it sums up the issue.
I don't really have a problem with the moderation of these forums. After all, it is akin to a family movie, what with all ages (13+) being catered for. If scriptwriters in a family movie inserted vulgarities and obscenities into the content, then I'm sure their rights for freedom of speech would also be curtailed. The forums here have, after all, often been referred to as a soap opera.
The only problem I have really, is that it seems to be the christian zealots who are the most alert post happy. That means that a lot of what the christians find offensive gets removed. Most other users are content to let the hate filled christian spewage stay, because they don't want the forums overmoderated (or they just aren't as easily offended as the religious people). This results in a skewed forum, where you've got loads of hate filled religion (and threads being hijacked by religious people) and a lot of uncontentious material.
If the regular user used robomod as it was designed to be used, then at least the alert happy people would see how annoying it is to have posts removed, and maybe ease up on their over-zealous use of the alert button.
Meeting offensive posters head on is a sure fire way to further pollute the forums. Any time I've seen (taken part) in a slanging match with a troll, the non-troll has nearly always gone down to the trolls level rather than bringing up the troll to acceptable levels.
No point complaining about the moderation here. We've just got to learn to use it better, so that it works as it should do.
D
Originally posted by belgianfreakIt people are too afraid to express themselves for "fear of a scathing response" then they should probably stay away from contraversial topics. If people want to limit what they do because of what someone else might do, that's their choice. I seriously doubt whether the moderation (particulary some of the aggressive moderation) of these forums has led to MORE exchanges of ideas and information. And, of course, this argument doesn't address the censoship of things like Shav's highly recommended posts because a few people find them "offensive".
OK. I understand if you don't want to get into this again, but what if by not having a system of moderation the actions of certain users limit the free speech of others? For example, if people are allowed to run free and be as abusive as they like they will prevent other users from expressing themselves for fear of the scathing response. I guess an ana ...[text shortened]... ore plants growing (no offense intended to anyone who thinks they've just been called a weed) .
I tend to agree with Ragnorak, but my philosophy prevents me from fighting "fire with fire" by alerting the many off-topic and preaching posts by Born Agains in the Debate forums. It is my choice to not do so even though I find their constant barging into non-religious threads with preaching and attempts to convert people on-line while we were debating the political situation in Lebanon (for example) as annoying and offensive to the idea of the Forum. Yes, I'm fighting with one hand behind my back but I prefer to stick with what I believe in. I must say, though, it seems quite unfair that some of my caustic posts in response to this rubbish have been modded while their trolling posts always remain. Double standard?
I'm told certain weeds can have some interesting uses, so I'll try to take that as a compliment.
Testing 123. I'm getting very peeved; I started a thread "Sickening Bible Stories" in Debates where people are encouraged to post Biblical verses which make the Old Testament God look not too nice as a counterpoint to the incessant preaching going on. A Born-Again decided to reveal an incident from his past which I find bizarre to do on an INTERNET CHESS SITE (and off-topic); I've three times attempted to post a sarcastic remark in response and have not been allowed to. I used no profanity at all. What gives?
Originally posted by no1marauderI was having trouble with a reply yesterday... make your post (not a reply), and edit it to contain the quoted post.... It is some bug, you have not been moderated.
Testing 123. I'm getting very peeved; I started a thread "Sickening Bible Stories" in Debates where people are encouraged to post Biblical verses which make the Old Testament God look not too nice as a counterpoint to the inc ...[text shortened]... have not been allowed to. I used no profanity at all. What gives?
P
Originally posted by PhlabibitIn the words of Emily (forgot the last name) from SNL: "Nevermind", though it seemed odd that it was the only message that I couldn't reply and quote from. Oh, well.
I was having trouble with a reply yesterday... make your post (not a reply), and edit it to contain the quoted post.... It is some bug, you have not been moderated.
P