Jump to content

Censorship and that judgement

Gibbo

By Gibbo
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

WotEver Veteran II

WotEverDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

strip naked

parading it

Coventry

horseback

Lady Godiva

I assume?

Yeah, I got it, I was just trying to be funny... oh, never mind ;)

 

Where's Dog Star on the Cov? Not noticed you on my travels.

 

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mayalld Veteran II

mayalld

Posted
Posted

For the avoidance of misunderstanding, the topic in question has not been 'closed' or 'deleted' it has been temporarily removed from view but it still exists in its entirety - including the quoted text that a member insisted in reposting after another moderator had spent valuable time deleting it for good reason. My replacement post stated:

 

"I have temporarily removed the original topic pending resolution of reports claiming that some of the content could prove dangerous or damaging to the forum and its owner. I am hoping to discuss these reports with my 'Site Crew' colleagues as soon as practicable and we can then decide what best to do. My apologies for any inconvenience - I do hope that we can get the original topic back up again soon."

 

I thought that explanation was sufficiently clear and, at the time of writing this, the site owner has not yet had an opportunity to devote time to the subject.

 

I cannot understand why some members have difficulty with the concept of a privately owned forum where the site owner assumes personal responsible for its content.

 

The majority of us are extremely grateful for Daniel's efforts in making this excellent forum available to us all. My biggest worry is that he may become tired of the constant whinging from a small but vociferous minority and, as a young man with many other interests, he might easily find better things to do with his time and money . . .

 

I don't think that people have the slightest difficulty with the concept.

 

However, it is a concept that can be at odds with running a mass-appeal forum. Yes, there must be a right, in extremis, to take arbitrary decisions without explanation. Taking such decisions and failing to explain too often, then jumping down peoples throats to tell them that you can do whatever you want, whether it is reasonable or not, because this is a privately owned forum tends over time to make people reconsider whether the forum is for them.

 

Your original comment was adequate in so far as it went, but as it became clear that other messages, some apparently contradictory, were being given out, it is entirely reasonable to ask for clarification, and unreasonable to shout down those who ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phoenix_V Rising Star

Phoenix_V

Posted
Posted

For the avoidance of misunderstanding, the topic in question has not been 'closed' or 'deleted' it has been temporarily removed from view but it still exists in its entirety - including the quoted text that a member insisted in reposting after another moderator had spent valuable time deleting it for good reason. My replacement post stated:

 

 

 

Just for the record i posted the original text in full for 2 reasons one was admittedly because it did occur to me that it might "disappear" from the original site but secondly i read on here a while ago that people dont like postings straight to links but prefer a quote from them. This post was removed for understandable but obscure reasons. I DID NOT then repost it i posted a link to a reputable site which still then carried the text, I understand this has been done in the past where CWDF did not wish to carry contentious stuff but on this occasion it was again blocked no reason given, so i did not "insist on reposting" and find this comment offensive.

 

By way of update I was at a meeting today when BW confirmed that they were waiting for an electronic version of the final text from the court and would then be released under the FOI act so i really cannot see any reason why the available draft cannot be available meantime as it is thanks to members of this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Minos Collaborator

Minos

Posted
Posted

Let me assume, just for a moment, that the reason for this removal of threads and links is to satisfy the demands of a court.

 

If the court says that something is not available for publication, then publication in defiance of that order is contempt.

 

We all have every right to disagree and object to the court, but we have no right to demand that a third party puts themselves in contempt of court in order to satisfy our own objection. That is, in effect, what you are asking for.

 

It doesn't matter a rat's dick what members of this forum think of the rules. If the rules are broken, the forum owner and moderators will be held to account for what appears here. If you think the draft ruling should be published, then publish it on your own website.

 

So as far as I am concerned, if they choose to remove stuff then that is fair and right and proper. They don't even need a writ from a lawyer to justify it to you, me or anyone else. It is their website and they are responsible for it.

 

There is nothing stopping me, you or anyone else from setting up our own alternative forum to publicise anything we want and take the rap for it if it breaks the law. If you don't like it here, there is a saying here in Yorkshire that fits quite nicely: don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phoenix_V Rising Star

Phoenix_V

Posted
Posted

Let me assume, just for a moment, that the reason for this removal of threads and links is to satisfy the demands of a court.

 

If the court says that something is not available for publication, then publication in defiance of that order is contempt.

 

We all have every right to disagree and object to the court, but we have no right to demand that a third party puts themselves in contempt of court in order to satisfy our own objection. That is, in effect, what you are asking for.

 

It doesn't matter a rat's dick what members of this forum think of the rules. If the rules are broken, the forum owner and moderators will be held to account for what appears here. If you think the draft ruling should be published, then publish it on your own website.

 

So as far as I am concerned, if they choose to remove stuff then that is fair and right and proper. They don't even need a writ from a lawyer to justify it to you, me or anyone else. It is their website and they are responsible for it.

 

There is nothing stopping me, you or anyone else from setting up our own alternative forum to publicise anything we want and take the rap for it if it breaks the law. If you don't like it here, there is a saying here in Yorkshire that fits quite nicely: don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.

 

 

The judgment wasnt removed to satisfy the court, if it was who could argue, but it wasnt nor were the other posts,I am entitled to express my opinion

without your abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Minos Collaborator

Minos

Posted
Posted

Abuse?

 

This is abuse: up yours.

 

What you got from me was valid and justified expression of an opinion.

 

There is a difference. If you need a clearer explanation, I'll be delighted to spell it out to you.

 

The point remains. This website is someone else's property. If they decide that something doesn't belong on here, then it doesn't belong. What you think of it is irrelevant.

 

We are all here at their invitation, and it is up to us to respect the rules that they choose to apply.

 

It's simple, really. If you don't understand, that's your problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carlt Veteran II

carlt

Posted
Posted

 

The point remains. This website is someone else's property. If they decide that something doesn't belong on here, then it doesn't belong. What you think of it is irrelevant.

 

We are all here at their invitation, and it is up to us to respect the rules that they choose to apply.

 

It's simple, really. If you don't understand, that's your problem.

You may be right but this forum also invites suggestions, comments and criticism.

 

Just because you respect and follow rules, doesn't mean you can't question, criticise and make suggestions.

 

The statement "Rules is rules" is obvious, to the point of irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Minos Collaborator

Minos

Posted
Posted

Yes, discussion is good.

 

But the site mods have made their position clear.

 

There is a point when 'discussion' become 'denying the mods their right to do their job as they see fit.'

 

Fair enough thats probably not abuse in Yorkshire, doesnt lead to a very useful discussion though

Neither does accusing someone of abuse just because they disagree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phoenix_V Rising Star

Phoenix_V

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yes, discussion is good.

 

But the site mods have made their position clear.

 

There is a point when 'discussion' become 'denying the mods their right to do their job as they see fit.'

 

 

Neither does accusing someone of abuse just because they disagree with you.

1 The site mods haven't made their position clear.

 

2 Sorry but I am happy to discuss issues on this forum but i dont make personal remarks and i dont expect to receive same having been on here for some 5 years i dont take kindly to being rudely told by someone that appears to have been here 3 months to leave if i criticize one decision of the thousands the hardworking mods make

Edited by Phoenix_V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.