9 replies to this topic

[spyglass]

I have received a PM from Flas# #arry about the censorship of his post and asking me to repeat it here. I will not do that as it would probably only spread the censorship wider to no useful purpose.

I can to some extent understand #arrys frustration as I was also the subject of censorship some time ago myself when I gave some views on religion which did not fit with Matt Palmer and/or the moderators. In the end to be honest, I regard religion as such an anachronistic irrelevance that I decided it was not worth arguing about the censorship and said to delete the post as I thought the Forum itself was more important than the views of any individual. But now that we have two known instances of censorship it might be worth seeing what others think.

Of course this forum is provided by Matt Palmer and funded by him as far as I know so he is entitles to say "my forum my rules" I suppose.

Someone once said something like "I disagree with what you say but will fight to the death for your right to say it".

Thrown open for discussion.

[Matt]

All,

Flas# #arry has been suspended because he would not let moderators review his concerns, instead he persisted in posting more comments about the moderation process and, on being suspended, has to asking a range of moderators and other members to post his comments for him. This I will not allow.

Everyone has to abide by the same rules, and it's nothing to do with what any one person thinks on an issue. This is friendly forum that should be welcoming to all, and I am determined to keep it that way.

Other members - notably spyglass - have been happy to abide by the rules even when they disagree with the decisions made.

Those who cannot do that have no place here.

[nabbers]

Seems a bit daft if one person cannot be moderated by arguments from other users or ignored as a troll. Harry didn't say anything that you don't read in the papers, he was just critical of the censorship.

There are aspects of this forum that disturb me. Flash Harry's treatment is one.

I have been told that the moderators can view private messages and this was scoffed at by Wharfedale, but there was an event where comments were made on the forum about PMs sent to me about Burley Bridge.

Are private messages subject to scrutiny by the mods or the owner here, when they are not the recipients ? Ditto emails sent between members?

[catbazza]

nabbers, on 13 January 2011 - 09:51 PM, said:

I have been told that the moderators can view private messages and this was scoffed at by Wharfedale, but there was an event where comments were made on the forum about PMs sent to me about Burley Bridge.

Are private messages subject to scrutiny by the mods or the owner here, when they are not the recipients ? Ditto emails sent between members?

Moderators cannot read other members PM's, the only PM's that they can read by are the ones addressed to that particular moderator.

[nabbers]

catbazza, on 13 January 2011 - 10:55 PM, said:

Moderators cannot read other members PM's, the only PM's that they can read by are the ones addressed to that particular moderator.

Not the case with emails though:

Quote

IMPORTANT: To prevent malicious use, all emails sent via this form are logged and the contents recorded and available to the administrators. DO NOT email user names, passwords or any personal details.

Doesn't take a leap of the imagination for the PMs to also be logged. Is "Administrators" the same thing as "moderators? or is Matt an administrator as opposed to a moderator? Can administrators see private messages?

Is there a hidden tier of forums on this board that normal registered users can't see? Where moderators discuss the the board and it's members?

Could I have privileges for an hour so I can take a looksee? Check that our rights are not being infringed in any way.

[catbazza]

nabbers, on 14 January 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

Not the case with emails though:


Doesn't take a leap of the imagination for the PMs to also be logged. Is "Administrators" the same thing as "moderators? or is Matt an administrator as opposed to a moderator? Can administrators see private messages?

Is there a hidden tier of forums on this board that normal registered users can't see? Where moderators discuss the the board and it's members?

Could I have privileges for an hour so I can take a looksee? Check that our rights are not being infringed in any way.

It is NO secret re the position of Matt in the forums as every post he makes carries his photo & also states quite plainly "Admin".

You actually appear very concerned that there are things going on behind the scenes, this I can assure you of nabbers there is nothing at all going on except the normal working of things to try & make your visits to the forum a pleasent experience.

[nabbers]

Can I say how I feel without getting banned like FH?

We have a politician; Matt, who as someone mentioned in another thread, is hoping at some point to get elected as an MP. He does a lot of work for the community and provides these forums. That's great!

I am an old school internet user, don't believe free speech should be censored on the web, unless it is bad language, pornography or incitement to commit crime. The first two are easily solved by installing filters.

Free speech isn't allowed on this forum, that's bad. But I think it runs deeper than that, if Matt becomes elected to become an MP and goes on to become a member of the government, then we have a politician in government that doesn't believe in free speech on the internet. The internet is under a great deal of threat from governments who want to control online content. I believe that if free speech is allowed to flourish then the worlds governments will have to start adhering to the will of the people.

I have read FH's posts and Pm's and believe that he is the victim of the Administration's bruised ego and bungled administration. Matt's post above would be very worrying if you put those words into the mouth of someone in power, speaking about a citizen with an opposing point of view.

I feel pretty strongly that this is worse than just censorship, it's controlling the debate so in effect there can be no debate unless it goes the way Matt wants it to.

If on top of that Emails and PMs are monitored by Administration, then big brother is watching you!

If you want to ban me for speaking out, do so. What I would ask you to do is to stop and think about how this looks.

It looks really bad.

[Matt]

nabbers, on 14 January 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

.....

I can't agree at all with any of your post, nabbers!

PM's are not read by me unless they are to me. For the system to work there would have to be a record somewhere in the database but I wouldn't know how to access that record, as I've never tried, having had no reason to.

Everyone knows that I set these forums up and run them, that's no secret. I think the rules are as lenient as they can be, possibly too much so. For everyone I know who likes to bang on about free speech, there is someone else I know who has been upset by the words used. There is a balance betwewen the two in any community, and I try to strike it as best I can. There is no such thing as freedom without rules, that's just anarchy and I can't take responsbility for that.

This forum is here to bring people together and strenghen the sense of community locally. I run it as democratically as possible and in active consultation with a group of moderators who are very independent.

The bottom line is that the individual who triggered this debate was not propared to abide by the rules they signed up to, it as simple as that. Even then, he was given many warnings before being suspended, not banned. No more than that, no less than that, no agendas, allegations or conspiracies.

I do however have a responsbility to the local commmunity, and to every individual within it, not to allow anything I do to make their lives more difficult. Some of the posts on this forum have been hurtful to individuals in the community, and I will be looking out more closely from now on.

We'll do our best to respond to feedback but ultimately if anyone does not agree with how it is run, they are free to spend time elsewhere.

I believe that most people who visit the forum value it and want it to be a friendly and welcoming place to be.

Matt

PS. Anyone who thinks this forum, which was set up long before I was asked to stand for council, is part of some sort of political agenda should read some of the posts on it! This forum is politically independent and I intend it to stay that way.

[nabbers]

Matt, on 15 January 2011 - 11:55 PM, said:

I can't agree at all with any of your post, nabbers!

Okay Matt, That's cool, forums are all about debate.

Quote

PM's are not read by me unless they are to me. For the system to work there would have to be a record somewhere in the database but I wouldn't know how to access that record, as I've never tried, having had no reason to.

Okay I'm getting conflicting answers, can Wharfedale access PM's, only his post appeared to show that he at the very least, knew that a PM on a particular subject with a particular content was passed between Kingfisher and myself. How did he know that without seeing the PM or being told about the PM, when neither Kingfisher or I had spoken of it to anyone?

Quote

Everyone knows that I set these forums up and run them, that's no secret. I think the rules are as lenient as they can be, possibly too much so. For everyone I know who likes to bang on about free speech, there is someone else I know who has been upset by the words used. There is a balance betwewen the two in any community, and I try to strike it as best I can. There is no such thing as freedom without rules, that's just anarchy and I can't take responsbility for that.

"Bang on about free speech"??? this statement worries me and almost induces me to invoke Godwins law. it seems to confirm that you don't agree with free speech. FH used a word which is widely used in the media. It wasn't the 'N' word, it wasn't the 'C' word. Is the word "Bradistan" offensive in your opinion? It's widely used Matt. FH makes a point in one of his banned posts that you appeared to support the misconception that Halal meat was served in our schools to non Muslim pupils, but he showed this to be untrue. Could you comment on that without getting cross and banning me?

Quote

This forum is here to bring people together and strenghen the sense of community locally. I run it as democratically as possible and in active consultation with a group of moderators who are very independent.

Those moderators have been noticeably absent lately (especially Wharfedale, but not Catbazza", the decisions have not been visible on the public side of the forums and it is clear from FH's tweets, emails, screenshots and PMs that you have been a little heavy handed in your dealing with this matter.

Quote

The bottom line is that the individual who triggered this debate was not propared to abide by the rules they signed up to, it as simple as that. Even then, he was given many warnings before being suspended, not banned. No more than that, no less than that, no agendas, allegations or conspiracies.

I'm sorry Matt, but I don't buy this, I've seen some screen shots, may I have your permission to post them? That show FH tried to sort this out just as I am now.

Quote

I do however have a responsbility to the local commmunity, and to every individual within it, not to allow anything I do to make their lives more difficult. Some of the posts on this forum have been hurtful to individuals in the community, and I will be looking out more closely from now on.

I truly believe that FH has found his treatment by yourself to be hurtful because he has taken pains not to say anything that he does not believe to be true and has only passed on content form main stream sources, all of which remains in place whilst his initial post has disappeared along with his attempts to resolve the situation.

Quote

We'll do our best to respond to feedback but ultimately if anyone does not agree with how it is run, they are free to spend time elsewhere.

I believe that most people who visit the forum value it and want it to be a friendly and welcoming place to be.

That seems a like a "like it or lump it" statement. I don't believe FH was being unfriendly, he was stating his view on the Bradford corporation, which seems to be echoed by others whose posts remain. His very reasonable post explaining his position in this category was taken down, so without people like spyglass and myself to stand up for him, he has no outlet, although he seems to be giving a good account for himself on twitter!

Quote

PS. Anyone who thinks this forum, which was set up long before I was asked to stand for council, is part of some sort of political agenda should read some of the posts on it! This forum is politically independent and I intend it to stay that way.

But it appears that you have removed a user because he was mildly critical of you and it also appears that at some point the forum has been reset so the early posts to which you refer are not viewable.

I guess I will also go the same way as FH? I hope you will show some backbone in this debate Matt and publish FH's post so everyone can see this is all just a storm in a tea cup. He has been critical of his treatment and kicked off, but only because he feels really badly treated, you have been too busy to sort the situation out because you have been campaigning in Oldham etc.

Like Harry, I do think many of your posts seem a little rushed; I think the way you should handle the Bradistan thread is state your position so it doen't reflect badly on you in anyway and either lock it or take the time to debate it. Banning one user whose posts are moderate compared to others is the wrong thing to do.

You have to do the right thing here, it's a mess, you can't just sweep it under the carpet.

[Matt]

Whether something is offensive or not depends on who is doing the reading, not who is doing the writing. As such, everything is cnsidered in the context in which it is written. Everything should therefore be written with consideration to those who might read it. Your post attempts to inflame matters by repeating some of the comments that caused concern, but it's out of context so it doesn't much matter.

I think my comments are pretty self explanatory really. I note you disagree; that's not a problem, as long as you stick to the rules. As for FH, that's his choice not to do so - end of matter.

Matt