[csdenmark]

I wonder how the legal regulations are. Such is of great importance to be able to judge whether somebody is right, justified or wrong in what has been done.

I understand there have many nerves involved in the last few days. I really thought that all knew that individuals only weapon if they are confronted with an organization is the threat to STAY. Here we have had the opposite situation - quite frankly I don't understand the upset. I don't understand the need for what has been done and has costed a lot of credibility which will take long time and be very difficult to restore.

As always we are wiser afterwards.

[Flame]

uday, on Apr 3 2004, 03:40 PM, said:

Luis

I *am* one of the cops on BBO.

Are you arguing that cops are not needed? Or that they should pretend not to be cops? Or that some areas of BBO, like the forums , should be a cop-free zone?

The yellows on bbo wear a couple of hats: the ones we see are usually "Tour Guide", "Translator", and , occasionally "Cop".

If you can present a case for

a) Complete non-censorship
Censor-free zones ( bbo.flame , where you can post what you like)
A better procedure for censorship

I will happily listen.

I agree with Irdoz that this subject is worth debating in a calm way.

Abuse is a fact of life in any online community, and it has to be managed.

You asked Luis , but ill give you my answer.
What i want is that when you consider censoring, emphsise that you are in a class full of people who you know, they are your friends but you are incharge, then someone say something which you think shouldnt have been said, if you are going to tell him something like, "you are an idiot, you have not enough brain to be able to control your tone", this is what me or anyone else feel that we are beeing sensored, if what i said was hard enough for you to umilitae me like i said before then go ahead and censored, but if in the real life you would just say to yourself, this guy is stupid, then dont censore. The point to always keep in mind is that behind every name here there is a person with feelings, so do your best not to heart him unless upsolutly necessary.

[the hog]

On reflection I suspect there may be a cultural issue at work here as well. Certain nationalities are quick to call a spade a spade and not a "gardening implement". Australians for example say things as they are.

Such an attitude occasionally makes for fiery exchanges, but conflicts are resolved quickly and there is no undercurrent left to sour relations. In my experience other nationalities are more concerned with "niceties". This probably has a lot to do with the differing attitudes being expressed here.

Ron

[dogsbreath]

Hi ..Slothy .. what is 'techtonically' ? did you feel your plates move?

[luke warm]

i think there needs to be moderators for a forum to be successful... all you can ask is that the ones who do the editing/deleting be objective about it

it's hard to know if that's been the case... i'll personally have to assume so, in good faith, until proven otherwise

[mikestar]

Ron's point about cultural differences is well taken. However, in any culture, there is a huge difference between:

"I think convention X is poorly designed and you might want to reconsider your decision to use it."

And:

"How on earth could you be so blindingly stupid as to play convention X? Has there been a lot of inbreeding in your family?"

I imagine the latter is a severe insult in any culture. Of course, that latter might be fine between close friends who know it isn't meant seriously--but a third party reading the forum can't know this.

Obviously drawing of lines needs to be carefully and won't be nearly so clear cut as these extreme examples. And I certainly think that when in doubt, the moderators should err on the side of free speech.

But there is no doubt in my mind that line drawing needs to be done.

[uday]

I did run this thread past FG as a sanity check. He does agree with my attitudes on forums ( and bbo itself ). That is, there is no need for us
to allow stuff that is harmful to other users to be posted here.

He gave me a couple of examples, no need to rehash them here.

Anyway, this whole censorship stuff is not as big a deal as it seems. Of the 17,000 posts we've seen, i suspect that fewer than 100 have been "moderated".

[Shrike]

mikestar, on Apr 2 2004, 11:53 PM, said:

Libel and slander are are another question--it is settled law in the US and most countries that asserting "John Doe is a bridge cheat" (or any other odious thing) in a context where it is likely to be believed is not protected speech unless it is true--and the burden of proving truth is (in practice) on the speaker.

As an aside, I think this is misleading. Settled law in the US is that the plaintiff in a libel case needs to prove, among other things, that the statement in question was false, not the other way around. In fact, the plaintiff has to show that the speaker knew it was false, or didn't care (the "reckless disregard" standard) "In practice" it may be otherwise (though I doubt it), but the readership should know that in theory this is clear.

As you add, a successful libel action also requires a showing that the speech was likely to be believed, considering everything including the context. That's a long first step for anything posted on any public internet board.

Now, back to our story. . .

[csdenmark]

uday, on Apr 4 2004, 01:36 PM, said:

I did run this thread past FG as a sanity check. He does agree with my attitudes on forums ( and bbo itself ).  That is, there is no need for us
to allow stuff that is harmful to other users to be posted here.

He gave me a couple of examples, no need to rehash them here.

Anyway, this whole censorship stuff is not as big a deal as it seems. Of the 17,000 posts we've seen, i suspect that fewer than 100 have been "moderated".

Your argument would lead to the assumption that if you just silence all - then you have no censorship. Really the argument which was the dominant one during the cold war period as a proof for freedom. The nature of censorship is invisility and sanctions.

In Denmark we from time to time have disclosure of problems in public service area. People who cannot advice correctly due to fear for their job. Loyalty yes - but to whom? We also have problems with lawyers and doctors which groups have collegial codex for no criticism. Suffering the patients only. But you see no censorship at all. In EU they simply fire all persons who discloses fraud. And in UK we recently had a case with self-suicide of a person who anononymos informed about weapons in Iraq.

The problem is likely to be bigger in private sector. Business area and leisure area.

I am sure we have such kind of problems in all countries and in many areas. Mostly such kind of problems are elivated by the person will be leaving.

No Uday censorship has nothing to do with numbers. It is about credibility and nothing else.

[Rhutobello]

Just open my two news papers for Sunday.

1 Headline:

Navy site closed down because of high posting with woman discrimination content.

second headline

Quarell among nieghbours cost our community (350.ooo inh) more than 10 mil a year (1.3mill dollar)

Have a nice day:)

Edvin

[Rhutobello]

Just to bring in a smile i will give a poem from Fun21 site:

I have a spelling checker,
It came with my PC.
It plainly marks for my revue
Miss takes I cannot sea.

I've run this poem threw it,
I'm shore your pleased two no
Its letter-perfect inn it's weigh.
My chequer tolled me sew


Maybe this show .....:)

Have a nice day

Edvin

[Rhutobello]

LOL, me agein....but this will be the last

Feelings and pride are strong forces and I will try to give an exp of it.
This is a true story!!!!!!
There are two families that live in a “double house” One are a professor the other a scientific officer from the same school. ( so both should be educated persons)

In 1992 the professor put up an antenna on the wall (that is for both apartments). The SO believed that the screw was put on his half on the wall, and demanded the antenna removed.
After much quarrel, the SO took the case to court.

This case has been in and out of court for 12 year. The SO has lost every time, and those 4 screw holes has cost him 700.000 kroner or abut 100.000 dollars in attorney fee for the professor., on the top comes his own expenses.

The case ended this year with the professor leaving for another job.

So I think we shall be glad that we have some sort of safety valve here in the community

Still a nice WE
Edvin