[uday]

Various posts in 'Will play for food' thread deleted, since they were nothing but noise, distracting readers from the original message ( someone looking for work, someone wanting to know what the ACBL was).

Squawk if you must, but do it here.

[hrothgar]

uday, on Aug 28 2004, 08:55 PM, said:

Various posts in 'Will play for food' thread deleted, since they were nothing but noise, distracting readers from the original message ( someone looking for work, someone wanting to know what the ACBL was).

Squawk if you must, but do it here.

OK, I'll start the ball rolling:

Right now, the "design" of these forums is asking for trouble.

We continually experience threads in which various members get involved in rancourous debates regarding social aspects of the BBO environment. In many cases, this leads to rather heavy handed censorship on the part of the administrators. From my perspective, I think that these issues desperately need to get aired in a public venue. Continually trying to suppress the problem simply stokes the fire without allowing any of the pressure to bleed off.

From my perspective, either of two policies would represent a dramatic improvement:

(A) Limit the scope of the forum. Indicate that there are a number of subjects that are considered completely off topic. Establish a firm policy and stick by it. Squelch any discussion good or bad from the get go. Force individuals who want to fight this issues out to provide their own facilities.

(B) Let these threads progress to their inevitable conclusion. I doubt that any settlement will get reached, but eventually folks lose interest.

Personally, I think that (B) is the right way to go. As I've noted in the past, I think that public feedback strutures are necessary component to any kind of commmunity.

[spwdo]

[quote name='hrothgar' date='Aug 29 2004, 07:57 AM'] [quote name='uday' date='Aug 28 2004, 08:55 PM'] Various posts in 'Will ( Let these threads progress to their inevitable conclusion. I doubt that any settlement will get reached, but eventually folks lose interest. [/QUOTE]
And call it the "fighting corner" maybe another "the try to be humerous corner", Any topic besides what we have right now will probaly fall under those 2 catogorys and move anything in th wrong place there and forget about it:D

Marc

[luke warm]

i agree with richard... a good example is a recently deleted thread (started by rona, i believe)... she seemed to just want answers, i'm not certain she got any... if it's true that she was accused of unethical behavior as a kibber (im- or explicitly), i think she has a right to some sort of closure... and since the accusation was public, this seems the only like way to respond

[inquiry]

luke warm, on Aug 28 2004, 08:59 PM, said:

i agree with richard... a good example is a recently deleted thread (started by rona, i believe)... she seemed to just want answers, i'm not certain she got any... if it's true that she was accused of unethical behavior as a kibber (im- or explicitly), i think she has a right to some sort of closure... and since the accusation was public, this seems the only like way to respond

Well, don't use Rona's needs to support your arguement, as she asked at least twice that that thread be deleted. so you will need to find another reason to complain.. .and for what it is worht, the Accusation WAS NOT PUBLIC... but let's don;t start that discussion again.

ben

[bglover]

Hehe, Ben in for another round of skewering.

BBO owns the Forum. They have a right to censor material. This is old news.

The bigger question is whether this is correct venue, period, for such discussions given the realities. I'm not a newsgroup expert by a long shot (but I bet Rich is), so I have no idea what would be involved in setting up something like rec. games.BBObridge on supernews or whatever. But that might well be the sort of venue needed to supplement the BBO Forum.

Do that, of course, however, and you open an entirely different can of worms. Do you want a place with virtually no rules? A place where people can attack each other and slander and defame at will?

Rich and I had a couple of good rows on here in the past. We handled it for the most part tastefully. But, we are both relatively honorable people AND we were both aware of the watchful eye of Inquiry or Uday when we were doing our postings. So, although we both have a tendency towards hot-temperedness, we knew we had to stay within ourselves.

On a relatively unmoderated forum such as a newsgroup, one opens the doors to the worst kind of potential slanders and behavior. And those inclined to do so will certainly use that place in an unsavory way. Given the choice between wide open, wild and wooly and a place like this, I personally feel safer here.

[luke warm]

inquiry, on Aug 29 2004, 03:39 AM, said:

Well, don't use Rona's needs to support your arguement, as she asked at least twice that that thread be deleted. so you will need to find another reason to complain.. .and for what it is worht, the Accusation WAS NOT PUBLIC... but let's don;t start that discussion again.

ben

sorry, i wasn't aware she'd asked for it to be deleted... mea culpa... as for the public nature of it, maybe i misread what she wrote but it seemed there was an at least implicit public (albeit in the tourney lobby) accusation... but fine, if that's over it's over

the job of moderator isn't easy, regardless of the subject matter... and i suppose it's often best to err a little on the side of caution... it just seems, to some of us, that certain people, when the subject turns a certain way, are offlimits when it comes to criticism... i'm not speaking for myself alone, others have voiced this same thought to me... maybe there are sufficient reasons for this, i don't know... i'm just glad i don't have to make those calls

[keylime]

Censorship and moderation are two interchangable words in the eyes of those who control the source media.

[rona_]

If I remember correctly I asked for the thread to be closed, not deleted. Is there a difference? I was under the impression that a closed thread can still be read. Thanks.

[inquiry]

rona_, on Aug 29 2004, 02:25 AM, said:

If I remember correctly  I  asked for the thread to be closed, not deleted. Is there a difference? I was under the impression that a closed thread can still be read. Thanks.

Well your thread is an interesting case study in why WE DO NOT like calling people out by name in a public forum. The thread quickly, and predictabily spun out of control.

As for your request, you asked closed yes, but lets look at your wording.

Quote

Uday could you please close this forum?  August 28. 3:03 pm

Quote

My email is on my profile. My real full name is there, my real email address is there, my country of origin is there...unlike most of the other profiles I have seen the last few days......Uday you going to close this thread Please?  August 28, 3:35

Now perhaps to you "close this thread" in the second messages was clearer than "Close this forum" in the first. I took it as a request to lock and or close. In fact, in my last post, I said "anyone wiht anyththing else to say, say it fast as I am going to lock this thread ihis afternoon my time". Uday, instead locked it immedattely after that, and delelted it later. In highnsgght his action was correct and maybe I shouls have done it sooner.

[rona_]

I am sorry I asked. I just wanted to know the difference between closed and deleted. A simple explanation, without all the extras would have been much appreciated.

[uday]

Locking/Closing="prevent any new posts", "allow thread to be read"
Deletion ="remove thread completely from public view"

[bearmum]

keylime, on Aug 29 2004, 06:19 PM, said:

Censorship and moderation are two interchangable words in the eyes of those who control the source media.

Sorry I disagree - WHOEVER owns the forum has TOTAL rights to delete strings which have no direct relationship to the forum's basic discussions - SO IF the moderators felt that a particular string was a personal attack on ONE person (or perhaps it had degenarated into personal attacks of any kind) I feel the string SHOULD be deleted ---- and ANYONE who dislikes it can NEVER visit forum again

[the hog]

"Sorry I disagree - WHOEVER owns the forum has TOTAL rights to delete strings which have no direct relationship to the forum's basic discussions - SO IF the moderators felt that a particular string was a personal attack on ONE person (or perhaps it had degenarated into personal attacks of any kind) I feel the string SHOULD be deleted ---- and ANYONE who dislikes it can NEVER visit forum again "

You clearly have as much idea about what you are talking about as the man in the moon!

Qutoe - Pappa the Greek, but it certainly applies in this case.

[Brandal]

The_Hog, on Aug 30 2004, 08:09 AM, said:

You clearly have as much idea about what you are talking about as the man in the moon!

stop attacking the man in the moooooon

[luke warm]

bearmum, on Aug 30 2004, 01:39 PM, said:

keylime, on Aug 29 2004, 06:19 PM, said:

Censorship and moderation are two interchangable words in the eyes of those who control the source media.

Sorry I disagree - WHOEVER owns the forum has TOTAL rights to delete strings which have no direct relationship to the forum's basic discussions - SO IF the moderators felt that a particular string was a personal attack on ONE person (or perhaps it had degenarated into personal attacks of any kind) I feel the string SHOULD be deleted ---- and ANYONE who dislikes it can NEVER visit forum again

i don't believe anyone has ever said the forum administrators can't do whatever they want, whenever they want... that's a given

however, reasonable people of good faith can certainly disagree on the right or wrong of any number of issues

[etherwiz]

bglover, on Aug 29 2004, 02:03 AM, said:

BBO owns the Forum. They have a right to censor material. This is old news.

By the way - this LEAGALLY is not true.

The owners of a (Internet) Forum are protected against liabelity charges only if they DO NOT CENSOR the forum.

Now this is (of corse) subject to reasonable limitations, like any limit in the USA.
Although I beleive the limitations exists as far as the CASH you give your Lawyers, there are certain "Reasonable" inferences made to censorship.

The most clear example is NOT REMOVING anything Criminal from you forums (unless a goverment agency asks you not to (to "trap" who ever is doing it)). Not removing something Criminal is (of itself) a seperate crime.

HOWEVER THE ESSENCE to this protection from Liabilities that is extended every Internet Vendor is they do NOT CENSOR the discussion.

If they are caught censoring ONE ITEM that is not clearly unreasonable. then they can SUCCESSFULLY SUED for anything anyone says on thier board. This is because the law assumes reasonableness (when not in the eye of the goverment) actually is in the eye of beholder. The judge does not even have to agree with statement the carrier (BBO in this instance) is worth suing over. All the suer has to show damages occured to him/her. They do not have to be finacial damages but can be emotional or mental (and what the devil is the difference between these two anyway).

The law specifically states that once censorship has occured the carrier (BBO here - if they did the censorship) they are then responsible for every message on the forum. If they do not censor (other then stated above), then they DO NOT ASUME the liabilities of all Forum Posts.

Now this may seam like the Law is unreasonable in itslef. It might be.
But this law is also acknowledged byt International Law and has been for a long time (compared to the age of the interent that is).

_*_Dave

[scoob]

very interesting tidbit of knowledge, thank you dave

[1eyedjack]

I find Dave's response of interest. Could he (or anyone else who can speak with authority) explain please which country's laws have jurisdiction (1) over forums generally and (2) over BBO forum (and what is the principle that determines the jusrisdiction in the case of BBO forum)? I have in mind the fact that laws in different countries vary, those who post do so from all over the world, damaging in the process (if at all) other individuals from all over the world, with posts being edited or moderated potentially by yet other individuals from all over the world, and all of this information being distributed by servers that are shared and mirrored all over the world.

If I, an Englishman living in England, made a libellous statement in this forum of another Englishman living in England, which post may be moderated by an Englishman living in England, would I be subject to the English libel laws or those in the USA, or both? Is Dave's interpretation one that is decided under US jurisprudence?

[hrothgar]

1eyedjack, on Sep 7 2004, 08:34 PM, said:

I find Dave's response of interest. Could he (or anyone else who can speak with authority) explain please which country's laws have jurisdiction (1) over forums generally and (2) over BBO forum (and what is the principle that determines the jusrisdiction in the case of BBO forum)? I have in mind the fact that laws in different countries vary, those who post do so from all over the world, damaging in the process (if at all) other individuals from all over the world, with posts being edited or moderated potentially by yet other individuals from all over the world, and all of this information being distributed by servers that are shared and mirrored all over the world.

If I, an Englishman living in England, made a libellous statement in this forum of another Englishman living in England, which post may be moderated by an Englishman living in England, would I be subject to the English libel laws or those in the USA, or both? Is Dave's interpretation one that is decided under US jurisprudence?

The international legal structure really hasn't adapted well to the Internet. In particular, legal structures that are linked to geographical constructs don't handle the stateless nature of the Internet. There is enormous debate regarding which sets of laws should apply. Case in point: the French legal system bans the sale of Nazi pariphenial. The French have claimed that these laws extend to American sites like EBay. To date, International companies have tried to comply with these restrictions. (I'm not aware of any test cases)

On a more narrow topic, Dave is correct when he states that sites that engage in content filtering assume a burden of care. US jurisprudence recognizes so-called "common carriers". Common carriers agree to transport any/all traffic without any kind of restrictions. As such, they are granted immunity from certain types of actions. However, once a carrier waves common carrier status they assume much greater liability. Many folks (myself included) argue that the large ISPs made a critical mistake when they waived common carrier status in order to provide value added services like QoS and content filtering.