[hrothgar]

The BBO censors need to carefully consider the impact that their actives are having on these forums. While I presume that the censors have altruistic (or at least benign) motives, I an very worried that they are actually harming the community.

Right now, we have a system in which controversial thread pop up, participants start a vigorous debate, and then the threads are abruptly shut down before the situation can be resolved to anyone's satisfaction... Any system that continually stokes the fires without providing some kind of release valve is a recipe for disaster.

From my perspective, the forums need to move in one of two directions: Either provide MUCH stronger moderation, explictly block a wide variety of topics, and ban players who violate these norms OR adopt a more hands of policy and allow these threads to progress far enough that the participants can achieve some kind of closure.

[scoob]

i could be wrong, but i was under the impression that as soon as an internet forum begins moderating/censoring it's material, it becomes liable if/when any libelous remarks are posted and not removed; whereas a forum free of moderation/censorship of any kind cannot be held accountable.

*shrug*

[inquiry]

As one of the BBO censors, let me address the issues you raise.

First, to the bbo censors.. We don't sit around and vote, should this post go? Should this thread go? Anyone of us can act, and there are, give or take, about nine of us. Some, like me and uday, are more active than others in censoring post, but all can, and have, stepped up at time to time. With such a diverse number of us, some threads might stay longer, or shorter, than others. For instance, if it stayed long enough for a lot of post and replies, I probably am not the one that zapped it, as I seem to be here more than others.. and would have gotten to it (in general) more quickly. In fact, it only takes one of us to question a thread for it to be gone.

Second, I assume you are referring to the the three threads dealing with one users unhappyness over a private club, and members of that private club (and others) unhappyness with that one user. To be honest, this is not "a controversial" area. There is no controversy for participants to enter a vigorous debate. What you have is more of a viceral response with people choosing sides. Those that already hate the private club for their own reasons can jump on one side, and those that like the club or dislike the single player can jump in on the other. But debate? HArdly. There were no bridge issues, there were no how to run a club issue, there was nothing that would make either thread worth reading other than the sheer enjoyment of seeing one side or the other (or both) bashed publically. I deleted one of these threads (well it was a single post), and explained in a series of emails to the author why I deleted it, and if they wanted to post the general idea, they could come back and try again, turning the discussion to general issue rahter than specifics. The other two were deleted for cause by other censors, but I happen to agree with their assessments, and I should have zapped them earlier, for instance I read the one with the "blue letter" in the middle of it last night and couldn't decide how to go on it. Reading the further replies in it today, I made a mistake not deleting at least that one post, if not the entire thread last night.

This is a bridge site. Let's talk about playing bridge, and when playing bridge gets into legal or mechanical issues, let's use general terms, rather than holding people up as examples of what to be avoided... It is much better to say, "people who harrash directors and use abusive language will have their membership withdrawn" than to say "inquiry hassled directors and used abusive language so we had to withdraw his membership." The first is a statement of policy, the second, while implying what the policy is, is also a public attack on inquiry. The first is allowed here and is appropriate, the second is not. IT is that simple.... Let's keep it about bridge, not about personalities....

Ben

[the hog]

I agree Richard, but you are not going to get anywhere. We have been through this before and the truth is that some moderators either have a very odd value system or have their own agenda in censoring posts. I will leave you to decide which is which.

Ron

[luke warm]

i understand ben's thinking... this is a bridge forum, let's talk bridge... however, i'm not in full agreement with his premise... this is, to me, a bbo forum... all things bbo have been and will be discussed... sometimes those things ruffle feathers... sometimes needlessly so... sometimes feathers need to be ruffled.. but there's a difference between honestly seeking information (or answers) and beating a dead horse...

now i don't know doo doo about bbo's possible liability for posts ... i'll leave that to the ones who do know

[Rain]

Quote

1.  You will not engage in conduct or post any material that is defamatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of ANY law.  Doing any of these is a good way to find yourself barred from the forums.  The board should never go above PG-rated for any reason.

This is the first rule in terms of service, and I trust I speak for my fellow moderators when I say, like the first law of robotics, this is the main guide for any action we take.

Defamatory, abusive, vulgar, etc takes on many forms. I'm sorry if we seem to have different tolerance threshold levels, but I don't see the BBO forum as existing solely for the liberal-minded among us. There are other avenues/forums to express your views without fear of being edited.

When moderators edit, they've by definition removed the portions that don't belong, the bad portions of any post. How can a later viewer who haven't seen the original post know what it contained, how irrelevant and abusive it really is? I think this point is especially valid because Ben is here a lot more than any of us, and reads (and remembers!) more thoroughly much more than most of us what's going on in the whole forum. Some of the time, since the moderators are also more active in BBO, we also have access to more private information (gossip?) about what's going on.

I will highly doubt the validity of the claims of legal liability of BBO if we censor versus letting all posts be. It doesn't strike me as being fair, and isn't that the aim of legal rule?

BBO is a private site, and bbo forum is a private forum that the owners have allowed us to use. This implies a requirement of respecting the owners' rights.

-----------
Let me give you an example of what I feel is an irrelevant and mildly defamatory post:

Richard's post was a suggestion to what we should in BBO forum, and Ben's answer was a careful answer of why we are not already implementing Richard's suggestion.

Ron then suggested that some moderators either have a very odd value system or have their own agenda in censoring posts. To me, this is a mild attack on another user, in genteel speak.

Thanks

Rain

[the hog]

"Ron then suggested that some moderators either have a very odd value system or have their own agenda in censoring posts. To me, this is a mild attack on another user, in genteel speak. "

And it was a deliberately aimed barb, Rain, because the censorship policy of one particular individual - not Ben btw - has already caused the loss of one of the most prolific and entertaining posters on this forum. Seriously the imposition of such retrogressive individual values on the rest of the community is something I too am beginning to find wearisome.

Just one case in point, Rain. In the latest issue of censorship if a certain individual is given permission to form his/her own club, then surely prospective members of that club have a moral right to know if there were any ulterior motives involved and of any background baggage involved. This will now not be possible.

Actually I think Scoob has a point in his comment regarding the legal aspects involved.

Ron

[Chamaco]

Just to give my opinion about closing the thread we are taking about (zyx private clubs vs xyz player).

Yes, I agree the thread had come to a point that will define as: NOT constructive, silly, and irritating.

BUT, in my opinion, it had not become abusive.
Such "heated" threads are recurrent on the internet and in a way, part of the life of a Forum, just as well as some bad arguments between pards are a part of bridge tourneys.

Most of such "heated" threads naturally fade out, without the need of moderation.


In my very personal opinion, the removal of this thread was worse than the posts themselves: it had not reached the point of being really so bad, it was just silly and not constructive.
I may be wrong , but this removal leaves me with the impression that it was done more by irritation by the censor than a real need to close the post.

Having said that, I must say that in general all people managing the BB Forum are doing an excellent work !

Just my 2 cents

ciao

Mauro

[Dragan]

I believe in freedom of speech. I do not understand worries about variety of Topics and directions where they go. Only measure for some topic's should be number of reader's. I suppuse that company BBO had same measure. Only limit which should be seted is gentle speech.

Few event's and discussions here help me. I learn something new. I change my opinion about some things. On few other's I consolidate my opinions. Condition for that is to be criticized or supported without limit.

However, I feel one bad thing here which can be expressed with " we are all equal, but some are more equal". Pls prove me that previous isn't true.

With Regards, Dragan

[doofik]

I've been going round and round on this very topic with one of the moderators whom I hold in the highest regard. And while I respect the moderators' right to edit I don't quite respect the moderators' ability to remove.

Generally, I don't think that bridge will evoke profanities but it certainly will evoke a tremendous passion in most of us. And most of us act on it - do I ever:-) But out of my discussion with the above mentioned moderator came one thing I've learned, and looking at it from the moderators' perspective, perhaps it has some merit. The one thing is don't use individual names in your posts.

Hope this will somehow help some of us:-)

Jola

[inquiry]

doofik, on Oct 7 2004, 08:44 AM, said:

The one thing is don't use individual names in your posts.

This is the not so secret, secret to getting almost any thing posted without problems. Once a post gets personalized, it comes under heavy scrunity.

To Dragan, about some being more equal than others... and wanting proof... take a look at the threads you were involved in that got deleted. One was deleted as it hammered too hard way. That is, one favored one side of the "debate" the other favored the "other side", yet both got zapped. That seems like both were treated equal to me.

Ben

[Dragan]

I'am mathematician and maybe it is professional deformation, but proof which is offered to me about equality isn't enough. And althought I had nothing to hide, one member of group XXXXXXX use my private latter same as few others use my name in bad context. Same group of people sent messages to my topics about new BBO club with only one target: to crash my idea. Do you intervene ? How ?

Dragan

P.S. I checked my statements on high level of WBF. For some I had wrong, but for some I had right.

[inquiry]

Mr. Dragan,

If you post comments here, of course people can respond to them. If they disagree with your comments, they can say so.. and they have, over and over again. Examples are in your threads on rulings that didn't go your way with a variety of failures to alert. In these responses, they can be quite direct. Blaming for example, your bad result not on the failure to alert but on your lack of skill in play on a given hand. This is allowed (within certain bounds). You posted the hand. You questioned why a ruling didn't go one way or the other. All aspects of the hand you raised are fair game.... including the play. Perhaps saying the problem was with the play rather than the bidding can be stated more diplomatically that it was, but the issue about play does merit the consideration given it in reply to your original question.

The "private letter" you mentioned, didn't appear to be private. From the context, it was written to the membership of the club and everyone who was affected by the actions that the letter was written to address. Since from the context of the letter, it seemed to be a pubic letter, I found no reason to delete the post when the letter was first published (if I thought for a minute it was a private letter, the post would have been deleted immeidately). Since the (apparently) public letter was used to refute claims you made in the original post (reasons for a specific action that affect you), it seemed also in some ways appropriate to post that to tell the "other side" of the story. You had told yours, the letter and the comments that accompained it, countered your version of events. However, the author of the thread with the letter, and some of the replies, including yours aftewards, clearly distrubed one of the adminstrators enough to remove the thread.

I will say this about that issue.

1) The thread had nothing to do with bridge
2) The issue of who is allowed in a private club is not one for this site or for the BBO management... Private clubs are private, and they can pick and choose who they let in, and who they throw out. They don't even need a reason, or at least one they have to justify. Coming here to complain that you can't get in, or that you were thrown out of a private club is, well, both entirely useless (no one here will do anything to help you get back in or get in in the first place).
3) Ron raises an issue about leaving the thread so people can know to join or not join new private clubs by the actions and motives of the private club manager. I suspect that you willnot get a new private club until the moratorium is over. If your friend lets you have his, fine. I think any new club might be worth joining to see how it goes. People who disagree with a club's manangement can leave it.

As to mathematical proof that the "censorship" is even handed or not. Good luck getting enough evidence to find out if it is or if it is not. I will say that since you have been posting, the "censorship" activity has gone up dramatically. In the long and short of it, we do very little actual censorship, most months none, or the occassional snip out of tournment director name someone is whinning about. I add this, the one person I know that was banned from posting here was banned becasue he simply could not accept that a private club (beginner/Intermediate lounge) would not accept his membership. He kept comming and posting stupid, hateful post about the managment of the club, and about how it was his right to be a member. After being initially warned, then suspended, and having his post either heavily edited or deleted, he finally had his access terminated. And why? Because he kept getting personal in his attack.

Ben

[Added editorial content.. since posting this message, I have discovered from another moderator/adminstrator that a second person has been banned from this site in the past.]

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2004-October-07, 09:55

[julie5607]

Interesting topic. Let me add my two cents worth from the perspective of someone who checks in on these message boards every other day or so. When I come across references to threads that are closed or have been censored, I am intrigued. What was so threatening or interesting that it led to a thread being shut down and hidden away? I want to know, not badly, but enough so that sometimes I ask friends if they read the thread and know what raised the censor's ire. I would guess I am not alone in having my curiostiy picqued by this type of censorship.

My point is that I think removing whole threads actually leads to more discord than, say, closing them for new additions but leaving them readable, with perhaps the most sensitive or rule breaking stuff edited out and a note saying "such and such was edited due to content which breaks the rules of this message board". There can be a final post from the moderator saying something along the lines of "this thread is now closed as it appears that continued discussion along these lines will not add anything of substance to this topic", but people could continue to see what the argument was, and what points were being brought to their attention.

What would this accomplish that is more beneficial than removing the thread? Firstly, although there may be threads where no contribution is of any value at all, I would think they are very rare, and there must be some posts in the deleted threads that are rational, well reasoned out and deserved to be read. But more importantly, it would eliminate the retelling of tales from memory, the churning of who said what about whom and it was so bad that they censored the whole thing! It is my guess that most deleted threads become far more interesting in retrospect, when they are no longer available, so the posts are recreated from memory and they become more inflamatory than they were ever meant to be originally.

Anyway - that is my opinion - that deleting threads creates more negative buzz than the threads ever caused in the first place.

Julie

[Dragan]

inquiry, on Oct 7 2004, 09:33 AM, said:

The "private letter" you mentioned, didn't appear to be private.

Mr Ingury,

Quote is proof that I had right. What is pls private latter if it is not one to one? My latter is sended to only one person, second person show that latter to public.

Advanced bridge player knew that there are no judge who will protect his bad bidding&playing. Someone here input me that I ask better result to me, althought I bid wrong. That's not true, true is that I'am asking to opps be punished becouse no alert.

I don't like to this discussion go to the same direction as previous three. This is my final message to this TOPIC.

With Regards, Dragan

[inquiry]

Dragan, on Oct 7 2004, 04:35 PM, said:

inquiry, on Oct 7 2004, 09:33 AM, said:

The "private letter" you mentioned, didn't appear to be private.

Mr Ingury,

Quote is proof that I had right. What is pls private latter if it is not one to one? My latter is sended to only one person, second person show that latter to public.

Advanced bridge player knew that there are no judge who will protect his bad bidding&playing. Someone here input me that I ask better result to me, althought I bid wrong. That's not true, true is that I'am asking to opps be punished becouse no alert.

I don't like to this discussion go to the same direction as previous three. This is my final message to this TOPIC.

With Regards, Dragan

Dear Mr Dragan,

Good that the last reply was your last on the topic... as this does not good to continue down this vein. However, I have to address the issue of what is a private letter... when you open a letter...

"Dear [club name] friends,

Before all, I like to apologize to all those people which [snip]"

That most clearly isn't private.. It was addressed to club members friends, and stated a wish to apologize to "all".. how can that be private (per se). Sure a letter is sent to one, but here the distribution list is large. If I recieved that letter and I was a mmember of the said club, I would have sent a copy via email to all members on your behalf... There could be some issue that it was private in the sense that only members of the addressed club should have seen it.. .but surely it was more public than to the one person you addressed it. And the letter continues in the same tone, so it is clear that it was meant as a public (and or semi-public) in your own words to "wish to apologize too."

As for you asking opponents to be punished for their failure to alert although no damaged was caused by it? Well, your dogged deteremination to push that issue over and over is what has caused most, if not all of the problems surround the event.

Ben

[Aljosa]

If it is true that you alow using his name in bad context and do not alow to he use opps name in same way, Dragan had right.

You had to be neutral.

[inquiry]

Aljosa, on Oct 8 2004, 07:09 AM, said:

If it is true that you alow using his name in bad context and do not alow to he use opps name in same way, Dragan had right.

You had to be neutral.

Aljosa,

First off, welcome to the Bridgebase forum,

Second, you are of course absolutely correct. If we allowed public attacks on one person or not another that would be very bad. In fact, this is not the case.

There is a fine line here sometime.. if you say person X made a "bad play" especially in response to something they wrote describing the play. That will stay. IF you say somebody is a "bad player" that will not stay. We all make bad plays from time to time (and some of us, more often than others), but none of us want to be known or at least called out as a bad player.

Ben

[Brandal]

Never ceases to amaze me how seriously some people take online bridge(and sometimes themselves).

Any issue that can't be resolved at the table,can't be resolved here.
Any issue that can't be resolved internally in a private club,can't be resolved here.

If it can't be resolved within the "proper" channels.....move on.....

if a player can't accept the rules of a club,don't apply membership.

It's beyond me how a couple of not-alerted bids can amount to all this,is it worth it?

I reckon there should be about 1000 new threads about that every day.....if it was.

My 2 cents.....not picking sides just wondering

[luke warm]

i think the reason lies in the nature of bulletin boards... i've been on quite a few for a very long time, ranging from philosophy to chess... rarely have i ever seen threads locked or deleted for any reason except age... not that it's never happened, just rarely

so i think some people see this as an infringement on their right to give an opinion, and not as you see it... like most everything, it's all a matter of philosophy