Technical arguments.

[boatchad]

However, it was quite funny reading the thread in question, imagining all those guys pounding away at their keyboards in frustration. Methinks some of us need to lighten up a bit!

 

 

 

Janet I couldn't agree more, as one Lancastrian to another I thought it were a reet gud read. Very amusing, very enlightening, very childish and very entertaining but as a reader rather than a poster, and in no way offensive.

 

 

I say leave the postings exactly as they were posted because it will embarrass the hell out of those responsible when they calm down, leave them as an example of their immaturity!

[cheshire~rose]

I agree that posts should probably not be entirely removed, just the profanities deleted. I would rather take advice from a non-abusive amateur with a wealth of experience, than someone who feels they can insult someone because they managed to stay awake for three years to get a degree. If we don't see who the idiots are then we don't get the choice of who to ignore.

 

I have not been able to get on the forum much this week and was extremely interested to see how this thread was panning out.

 

I have to say that while I would generally agree with the consensus of opinion here I do have to take issue with the idea that a posting should be 'selectively edited' by the site crew.

 

It can cause certain things that are left unedited to be read out of context to the original full posting that was made.

 

If the person who made the posting has something they consider of value to add to the thread then they need to be able to post it without adding insults, threats or profanities. If they do not feel able to do so then then should not be posting at all.

 

If their valuable contribution is later removed by the site crew because it contains the type of language that is unhelpful to the social accord of the site then they only have themselves to blame.

 

Of course there is nothing to stop that person re-submitting their post with the offending bits removed when they have (hopefully) seen the error of their ways if they still wish to

 

problem solved!

[alan_fincher]

If the person who made the posting has something they consider of value to add to the thread then they need to be able to post it without adding insults, threats or profanities. If they do not feel able to do so then then should not be posting at all.

 

If their valuable contribution is later removed by the site crew because it contains the type of language that is unhelpful to the social accord of the site then they only have themselves to blame.

I agree.

 

My preference order for how the mods should deal with it is....

 

1) Remove the WHOLE of offending post, and replace by standard message that this has been done, (i.e. Allan's original suggestion)

 

2) Remove nothing, (but possibly add text that mods are aware, and will be "speaking to" the poster). I'm worried though that whilst this might appeal to people's views on avoiding censorship, it might also cause problems to the site, and particularly to the site owner. Why should Jon have to host a forum that continues to contain material that has been deemed to break his guidelines ?

 

3) Removal of just the bits deemed offensive. Far too subjective, in my view, and will make the moderators decision even harder. It could even tempt people into trying to see what they can manage to still get left in....

 

As Rose says, if someone knows that if they put anything they shouldn't into a post, then the lot will go, then they might learn more quickly not to do it. And yes, they can re-post a civilised version of it at a subsequent time, if they want to.

 

I definitely prefer removing the lot.

[carlt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrogen

 

Bloody yanks! Take our perfectly illogical spelling, turn it into something simple and send it back. Shouldn't it be 'wikipaedia'?

[Keeping Up]

Surely we have now talked this to death? Can we please now ask the moderators to introduce a policy, tell us what it is, and let us get on with talking about nice boaty things.

OK, we have had a short but intensive discussion, which was very useful and managed to remain civilised at all times.

 

Most people are in favour of the policy that I proposed. People have asked whether we could instead simply give out warnings; we have tried that and it hasn't worked. People have asked whether the offensive text could remain for all to see; to this I simply say no, it would not be right for offensive language to remain visible on the site.

 

From now onwards, with my Site Crew hat on, I shall without prior notice remove the entire content of any posting that breaks the forum rules by being "offensive, derogatary, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law". In each case the offender will receive a warning PM that explains to them why their post has been removed; they will normally be free to re-post it with the offending material removed or changed if they wish.

 

The exact details of our follow-up mechanism (which may be "3 strikes and you're out") are subject to ratification by our site host and will be clearly defined when they have been agreed.

 

OK everyone, now let's go and talk about nice boaty things.

 

Allan

[DHutch]

Yes. Me and Allan have been discussing this matter via PM, and based on our own thoughts, and the comments that have been made on this thread, we both feel that this is the best way.

- A copy of the PM send to the offender, and a copy of the removed content will then also be sent to Jon and the other sitecrew at the time of removal.

 

I have been in touch with Jon breifly via text message, and while he has been extreamly busy lately, he hopes have time tomorrow to discuss further the possable changes that could be made.

 

 

Daniel

[Jon]

Hi guys,

 

I have been made aware of the issue. Unfortunately it's 01:30 in the morning, I've just worked a 14hr shift plus I've got personal problems at the minute too. I have the day off tomorrow and I will read this thread in the detail it deserves. I'm sorry I haven't been involved until now.

 

Jon

[blackrose]

....is there a single member on here who has had a problem solved or even partially solved by the folk in question.

 

I think in future we should all be a little more sceptical when a 'Messiah' comes into our midst.

 

Yes, assuming we are talking about the same person/people, 2 people from the forum very kindly come out to my boat with their sophisticated diagnostic kit to check my systems and make sure everything was working as it should be. Both had an electrical knowledge for greater than myself (not difficult), and neither claimed to be the Messiah. I am immensly grateful to both for their help.

[Jon]

Hi guys,

 

I'm fully in support of the policy outlined by Allan.

 

We will be making more use of the warn system on the forum. This will be configured to work with the '3 strikes and out' policy.

 

In relation to the issue of editing/removal of a whole post, I have mixed feelings on this.

 

On the positive side, it is a fair system which shows no favourites. On the flip side, strings of discussion are often lost this way and quite often further relevant posts are made from what the offensive post had said. When I have done this previously, I have also been accused of censorship. I believe a certain amount of intelligence should be applied to the situation, but if the general consensus is to remove the whole post then I will go along with that.

 

To make it very clear, any member that threatens site staff for doing their job can expect to be instantly banned. Similarly, threats of any nature to any member will not be tolerated either

 

From now on in, the policy for the editing of topics will be as follows:

 

Moderators (Site Crew) reserve the right to edit any post without justification. However, we will always try to use the following policy. Posts will normally only be edited in the following circumstances:

 

· Where the post is inappropriate, offensive, derogatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.

· Where a post is in breach of the forum rules and guidelines as outlined above.

 

 

 

1. A moderator should at the first opportunity delete the entire content of any post which contains offensive, personally insulting, or threatening language, replacing it by a notice which states only that the text has been deleted for contravening the rules of the forum. This

 

2. The writer of any such post will be informed by the moderator precisely why the text has been deleted.

 

3. Three strikes and you're out! Anyone who has more than 3 posts deleted within, say, a year in this way would be referred to the site host who will decide what further action to take. This could involve a suspension or a permanent ban.

 

 

Any questions then please feel free to ask.

 

Jon