Unnecessary Censorship?

[bigbadwolf]

During the course of what can turn into a heated exchange, it's come to my attention that the editorial line is - perhaps inadvertently - turning an exchange of opinions in favour of one party. Say, for instance, that a thread is posted and, for whatever reason, another forum user objects to either the content, style or legitimacy of the OP, or posting, and in objecting attacks the author of the - supposedly - offending submittal, and in turn the author of the OP replies in kind - fighting fire with fire, if you will - but his or her equally aggressive post in reply is edited under the assumption that it was offensive, or the the/an aggrieved party complained, can this be construed as unfair? And if the poster of the edited post takes exception to his or her post/submittal being, in their opinion, unnecessarily edited, can they, after building a case in defense, request that their post be restored to its original content, no matter how that content will be recieved?

Also, if a user aggressively attacks another user without provocation, but is offended or hurt by the returning fussilade, do they have reasonable grounds to request that the response that offends them be edited or deleted? I'm of the opinion of that if you can't take criticism, then don't dish it out in the first place, thus rendering their offense in kind as unreasonable grounds for requesting the editing or removal of what, in their opinion, is an offensive reply? Or does the adjudicator(s) - in this case STF's admin or moderating team, decide for themselves what should be edited, even though it's in what has been designated as an arena in which abrasive posts are tolerated/accepted?

[ALIB]

BBW, I know you are a rugby fan, but the laws of football in England are underpinned by one fundamental prefix.
Thus, most regulations begin with the words,.."If, in the opinion of the referee,.."

Doesn't really answer your question on specifics, but I reckon Admin will answer along similar lines.

[bigbadwolf]

I understand your reference to a referee, ALIB, but in this context a referee's discretion doesn't really apply. Seeing as there's no real or tangible outcome, or an award that's at stake, except, perhaps, the seemingly fragile disposition of an aggressive attacker, who cries foul once on the receiving end of some vitriol themselves. A hypocrite, in other words. And a hypocrite who is seemingly pandered to.

[chrisj1948]

A general guideline: The hurt that has been done to you may explain, but does not justify, the hurt which you do in return.

Regards
Chris

[bigbadwolf]

Contrary to what my OP may suggest, Chris, I haven't been hurt by any comments levelled against myself during my tenure on Sydenham Town Forum. If I had, I would've requested the offending aspersions to be removed. But I haven't, and never will, called for the censorship of a fellow user, even if they are attacking me or what I've written. I'd simply like those who are wont to go on the offensive against others to exhibit a thicker skin if they're unexpectedly offended by their quarry's response. And for the Admin to remain impartial until either of the parties involved call for their intervention, or if either of those involved violate the terms of use of the arena in which they're clashing in.

[admin]

BBW if I can split your critique into two essential points: Partiality & Censorship. Let me answer them separately.

Partiality. Well I can try and be neutral but it is for others to judge whether that was achieved. Neither of us is best placed to judge. If I intervene in a flame war between two people because a threshold has been exceeded. It is the nature that these flames spiral upward each participant seeking to 'top' the other. When I intervene is therefore going to be after one and just before the retaliation comes in. So where is the partiality - to the last post or to the one I am seeking to avert?

Censorship: I was very careful to protect the substantive argument underlying the exchange (the existence or not of a website). I snipped a gratuitous bit of abuse. About five words as I recall. I also made it clear that further gratuitous abuse would also be snipped unless anybody else wanted to enjoy more from the mudpit. They didn't. You, however, posted several sentences of even more extreme abuse you knew I would remove. For what reason? I did remove it but left the substantive question. So lets be clear I did not seek to censor what people say but, as I have made clear before, I reserve the right to restrict how it is said.

You, like everybody else, agreed as a condition of posting not to be abusive. It shouldn't happen at all in Town Cafe & Town Hall. Good natured banter, yes, but gratuitous abuse most definitely not.

Town Pub is for more robust discussion. And it happens but as in rough houses you get rough justice. It is spelled out in the Pub Rules. In this case I was not concerned that one side or the other could take what was given. I was more concerned that it was getting on the wick of everybody else and you should be asked to quieten down.

So that's what I did. If I got it wrong I shall apologise and change the rules. It is up to others to say so. So BBW here we both sit before the jury. Will they speak?

Admin

[Robin Orton]

I don't really understand about flaming, so I looked it up on Wikipaedia.

Flaming [...] is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of an Internet forum [...]
Deliberate flaming, as opposed to flaming as a result of emotional discussions, is carried out by individuals known as flamers, who are specifically motivated to incite flaming. These users specialize in flaming and target specific aspects of a controversial conversation, and are usually more subtle than their counterparts. Their counterparts are known as trolls who are less "professional" and write obvious and blunt remarks to incite a flame war, as opposed to the more subtle, yet precise flamers.Some websites even cater for flamers and trolls, by allowing them a free environment. [...]
Many social researchers have investigated flaming, coming up with several different theories about the phenomenon.These include deindividuation and reduced awareness of other people's feelings [...] and miscommunication caused by the lack of social cues available in face-to-face communication . [...]

Is the interaction between Savvy and bigbadwolf 'hostile and insulting'? Yes. On the other hand. both of them seem quite to enjoy being hostile and insulting to each other, because (I guess) they sort of know each other. I suspect it's a sort of rough game, which, other things being equal, there's no reason to want to stop. If a group of friends sat quietly in the corner of a pub throwing insults at each other, nobody would really mind.

n the other hand, in our Town Pub, you can't sit quietly in the corner; everyone can hear what everyone else is saying. If you walked in innocently off the street, and heard people loudly accusing each other of 'drivel' or 'crap' and calling each other 'pathetic' or 'cowards', or worse, you might think, 'There are some horrible people in here, they're not even very funny, I'm going to drink somewhere else.' As I've said on another thread, I like to think of the Town Pub as a place where everyone in Sydenham can come to socialise with their neighbours. So I would like it to be attractive to as many people as possible.

A difficult line to draw. I think we have to leave it to Admin to balance these two considerations against each other as best she can. What I do think should not be tolerated is online bullying (and I know that's not always easy to recognize, given 'the lack of social cues available in face-to-face communication.') I think Admin should always do her best to nip that in the bud, and that we should support her when she does so.

[CaptainCarCrash]

I don't really understand about flaming, so I looked it up on Wikipaedia.

Flaming [...] is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of an Internet forum [...]
Deliberate flaming, as opposed to flaming as a result of emotional discussions, is carried out by individuals known as flamers, who are specifically motivated to incite flaming. These users specialize in flaming and target specific aspects of a controversial conversation, and are usually more subtle than their counterparts. Their counterparts are known as trolls who are less "professional" and write obvious and blunt remarks to incite a flame war, as opposed to the more subtle, yet precise flamers.Some websites even cater for flamers and trolls, by allowing them a free environment. [...]
Many social researchers have investigated flaming, coming up with several different theories about the phenomenon.These include deindividuation and reduced awareness of other people's feelings [...] and miscommunication caused by the lack of social cues available in face-to-face communication . [...]

Is the interaction between Savvy and bigbadwolf 'hostile and insulting'? Yes. On the other hand. both of them seem quite to enjoy being hostile and insulting to each other, because (I guess) they sort of know each other. I suspect it's a sort of rough game, which, other things being equal, there's no reason to want to stop. If a group of friends sat quietly in the corner of a pub throwing insults at each other, nobody would really mind.

n the other hand, in our Town Pub, you can't sit quietly in the corner; everyone can hear what everyone else is saying. If you walked in innocently off the street, and heard people loudly accusing each other of 'drivel' or 'crap' and calling each other 'pathetic' or 'cowards', or worse, you might think, 'There are some horrible people in here, they're not even very funny, I'm going to drink somewhere else.' As I've said on another thread, I like to think of the Town Pub as a place where everyone in Sydenham can come to socialise with their neighbours. So I would like it to be attractive to as many people as possible.

A difficult line to draw. I think we have to leave it to Admin to balance these two considerations against each other as best she can. What I do think should not be tolerated is online bullying (and I know that's not always easy to recognize, given 'the lack of social cues available in face-to-face communication.') I think Admin should always do her best to nip that in the bud, and that we should support her when she does so.

Is this some kind of joke Robin?

I think the odd bit a fiery banter is good for the soul just as long as it''s managed in the ways that Admin has explained.


Let's reiterate the obvious.

I know you're not really suggesting that Admin is a Lady, are you?

[admin]

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that the admin is an old woman ..."

Admin

[Robin Orton]

I know you're not really suggesting that Admin is a Lady, are you?

If someone chooses not to reveal their gender, I think a gentleman should give them the benefit of the doubt.

[CaptainCarCrash]

I know you're not really suggesting that Admin is a Lady, are you?

If someone chooses not to reveal their gender, I think a gentleman should give them the benefit of the doubt.

In 2011 Robin it is much more appropriate to refer to a poster who's gender has not yet been revealed as he/she.

Not set in stone but more PC.

[Rachael]

Robin - you are not being consistent. In the Other Forum you referred to me as Mr Dunlop when you didn't know my gender. My request back then for you to call me Dr Dunlop was made tongue-in-cheek as a response to your assumption that I was male - my point being that sometimes you just don't know.

mikecg is right - s/he if you don't know either way.

[bigbadwolf]

Where's my sockpuppetry thread gone?

------------
See the sockpuppet thread ... Admin

[michael]

I thought it was only 'the other place' where entire threads were removed at the whim of the admin. However, I think admin dealt with a thread that was almost entirely personal abuse quite correctly.
Now, where is that thread on necessary censorship?

[CaptainCarCrash]

Where's my sockpuppetry thread gone?

------------
See the sockpuppet thread ... Admin

It's gone where all your threads should go...........


The nearest landfill.

[bigbadwolf]

Along with any shred of credibility you once possessed, too.

[CaptainCarCrash]

[Voyageur]

Remarkably similar mugshot on Virtual Norwood!

[CaptainCarCrash]

What an amazing coincidence

[bigbadwolf]

What an amazing coincidence

<removed by admin>