I Want to Know Why...?

[April]

Who censures the censors indeed. They just pile in one after the other and they have the war buttons.
Tryin all sorts of devious ways to annoy me into submission.

 

[somewhereinusa]

Just for grins, I have been on forums that my name, Dick, gets caught by the automatic word police. I don't use any swear words except that one.?

 

[Ped]

This forum has been great. A few head butts when I first joined but thats not too bad. The WORST attitude a place can take is "this is my forum love it or leave it" where challenging, politely, the resident "experts" (egomaniacs) gets you in the crosshairs.
You dont know from one day to the next if youre going to be banned for a joke or something.

Such as a certain cheap rv'ing place santa knows about...

 

[krby]

Just for grins, I have been on forums that my name, Dick, gets caught by the automatic word police. I don't use any swear words except that one.?

I used to choose `kirby` as a handle everywhere, but lots of forums apparently use the same blacklist service for usernames and kirby is on it.

 

[April]

The WORST attitude a place can take is "this is my forum love it or leave it" where challenging, politely, the resident "experts" (egomaniacs) gets you in the crosshairs.
You dont know from one day to the next if youre going to be banned for a joke or something.

Such a certain cheap rv'ing place santa knows about...

Its a shame isn't it

 

[Ped]

Its a shame isn't it

You know what Im talking about too? Lol. A shame indeed.

 

[gnubie]

- honour the rules
- be respectful to each other

Do that and people will have an enjoyable time. Don't and we'll continue to see a growing list of reports that forum members make against each other.

 

[erik.calco]

This forum has been great. A few head butts when I first joined but thats not too bad. The WORST attitude a place can take is "this is my forum love it or leave it" where challenging, politely, the resident "experts" (egomaniacs) gets you in the crosshairs.
You dont know from one day to the next if youre going to be banned for a joke or something.

Such as a certain cheap rv'ing place santa knows about...

Yeah, that's my biggest concern. The chill effect. Then you feel like you're walking on egg shells. And people are no longer getting the help they need because you are afraid to put your neck out there.

 

[Ped]

Yeah, that's my biggest concern. The chill effect. Then you feel like you're walking on egg shells. And people are no longer getting the help they need because you are afraid to put your neck out there.

Yeah or tons of erroneous information propagates. Especially on forums that are prolific to a niche community.

But the mods being cognizant of being fact based has a huge positive effect. Countering with data instead of whos had solar panels longer or something.

 

[chrisblessing]

I like Will. To my knowledge, he hasn't done anything wrong and may not be fully aware of what some mods do. To the extent he profits, he has been very open and honest about it, both in his videos and on this forum.

I believe the primary concern of Santa is the demonstrated willingness of a mod to alter her words in her public post without any public trace-ability that she did not say those words. Would changing the words of a person's post without a clear public indication of the aleration count as libel under US law, or does acting as a deputy of the owner of a privately owned forum trump civil law in the USA in pubic discourse? If you can't see the moral implications of her primary concern, at least consider the legal ones.

Libel is defined as a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation. Members defaming others are committing libel. That alone would be grounds for censure. A moderator altering the content of a post for readability, brevity or decency, on a privately owned forum is not conducting libel, nor are they in breach of any US laws.

Svetz is likely right that an automated filtering system is blocking the use of "forbidden" terms. It is a very common, if at times inefficient, way to manage content.

 

[Supervstech]

Well, that's where you and I are different, and why I turned Will down to be a mod. If she wants to make accusations in an open forum without having the facts, and you're ok with that..... so be it.

Will wants this forum to be for the benefit of everyone. If any member sees something they have an issue with, as long as it isn’t posting in the wrong thread there shouldn’t be a problem with it.
How would it look if problems were forced to be discussed in private?

 

[erik.calco]

A moderator altering the content of a post for readability, brevity or decency, on a privately owned forum is not conducting libel, nor are they in breach of any US laws.

How do you come up with that logic? If a mod changes the words that a person spoke without clear public trace-ability, yet let's that comment remain as being said by the original poster, they are putting words in their mouth they didn't say, yet letting it be represented as the truth that the person said those words. How is this not libel? How is that different from publicly claiming someone said something they didn't say, and presenting that false claim as if it is the truth?

 

[Supervstech]

Reporting everything just has turned out to have backwards repercussions for me. My comment will be modified to the mods liking, even though there was NO offensive material in MY comment, but the person who was highly offensive's post stayed in tact. Go figure...

Certainly not!

a reported post is seen by all mods and the admin staff. Nobody can delete a reported notice along with the original quoted information in the report.

if a post got modified, report that post, and we mods can see what was modified, and the original post.

feel free to report any such posts you are aware of.

no post should be getting modified by a mod without notifying the member of the reason.

 

[Supervstech]

How do you come up with that logic? If a mod changes the words that a person spoke without clear public trace-ability, yet let's that comment remain as being said by the original poster, they are putting words in their mouth they didn't say, yet letting it be represented as the truth that the person said those words. How is this not libel? How is that different from publicly claiming someone said something they didn't say, and presenting that false claim as if it is the truth?

any such modifications should have a notice below them stating the reason... I will now modify your post with an additional period and leave a note...

 

[Supervstech]

How do you come up with that logic? If a mod changes the words that a person spoke without clear public trace-ability, yet let's that comment remain as being said by the original poster, they are putting words in their mouth they didn't say, yet letting it be represented as the truth that the person said those words. How is this not libel? How is that different from publicly claiming someone said something they didn't say, and presenting that false claim as if it is the truth?.

Notice how at the bottom it now says last edited by a moderator?

if you then go and edit the post, it should say last edited by you

 

[erik.calco]

Notice how at the bottom it now says last edited by a moderator?

if you then go and edit the post, it should say last edited by you

It does help to be aware of that. Thank you.

 

[chrisblessing]

How do you come up with that logic? If a mod changes the words that a person spoke without clear public trace-ability, yet let's that comment remain as being said by the original poster, they are putting words in their mouth they didn't say, yet letting it be represented as the truth that the person said those words. How is this not libel? How is that different from publicly claiming someone said something they didn't say, and presenting that false claim as if it is the truth?

Please research the meaning of "libel". Libel is committed by the original poster. Unless the post has been edited in such a way as to defame another, the post is not libelous.

If we want more precision regarding the original post, we should be discussing censorship, not libel.

 

[Supervstech]

The only reason it's not substantiated by me is, I don't screencapture every word I type, so I am at fault??

You shouldn’t have to screencapture any posts, if you report an edited post, the trail is saved and easily examined by the staff.

 

[Santa]

How do you come up with that logic? If a mod changes the words that a person spoke without clear public trace-ability, yet let's that comment remain as being said by the original poster, they are putting words in their mouth they didn't say, yet letting it be represented as the truth that the person said those words. How is this not libel? How is that different from publicly claiming someone said something they didn't say, and presenting that false claim as if it is the truth?

I could not agree more!

 

[Rider]

How would it look if problems were forced to be discussed in private?

There are some things that SHOULD be discussed in private, that have no place in an open forum. I believe that the OP should have taken that route first.

But I'm obviously in the minority here, so I have no further comments.