[csdenmark]

Free, on Jul 28 2005, 11:19 PM, said:

Did you ever read the forum rules, and what you accepted when you registered?  Here it is:

Quote

Please remember that we are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this BB. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB.

So you agree with the fact that your posts will be decent (to summarize). By posting offensive posts, you're breaking that agreement, not the other way around. You also agree with the fact that BB has the ability to remove objectionable messages.

However, sometimes me and others don't agree with the way the posts are removed (in this case an entire thread).

I read this post as 'the technical ability'. - Then completely right.

Regarding the moral and legal issues involved your post informs of nothing. That's what this thread and the whole discussion is about.

[luke warm]

ben touched on this earlier. in that deleted thread i believe... i've been known to play flannery (if that word offends you, substitute "stayman")... when i defended this, long ago, i took a lot of heat... i wasn't called an idiot (tho it might be difficult to prove otherwise), but i was told that most intelligent, discerning bridge players abhor that evil convention

i didn't take offense (well, not much)... even roland, the voice of reason, had trouble containing himself at the mention of the 'f' word... however, since nobody outright *called* me stupid or degenerate, i don't see any reason at all to delete any of the things said..

in the case of the deleted thread, i didn't notice anyone come under personal attack... i think if there's gonna be any censorship it should be for that reason and maybe a few others (explicit sexual content, for example - that is best left to private messages )

[1eyedjack]

Some of *my* concerns about censorship would be addressed if there were left on the forum some trail evidencing the fact that censorship has taken place.

If I see a post that contains

Quote

Blah Blah Blah bridge stuff blah blah {offensive material deleted - Uday} blah blah

then it would not cause me much concern.

I don't know if there is much logic to it, but the deletion of a thread leaving no evidence that it ever existed seems to me to be worrying on a different level.

If as a forum user I can see evidence of the extent to which the powers of moderation are exercised then I may be able to form some opinion of whether those powers are being deployed excessively *to my taste* (and that judgement is a matter of personal taste). I will never have a complete picture from which to form that opinion, but part of a picture is better than none.

[luke warm]

ben usually does just that, jack... many times i've found his footprints in a post i was reading... he'll take out what seems offensive, leaving the rest

[scoob]

luke warm, on Jul 28 2005, 05:03 PM, said:

(explicit sexual content, for example - that is best left to private messages )

i never get private messages, much less anything scandalous.

[bearmum]

luis, on Jul 29 2005, 06:42 AM, said:

whereagles, on Jul 28 2005, 05:38 PM, said:

Luis: things like "how can you be such an idiot" can be very funny or very insulting, depending on context

For me in a bridge discussion it will always be very funny.

in a F2f discussion the tone with which one says "how can you be such an idiot" varies as to whether it as meant as funny or as a dreadful insult
However in a forum such as this I suspect that unless you put in a it could be taken not in the spirit which you typed it

So may I suggest that everyone proofread their posts and if you wouldn't like to see the comment directed at you change it

[cherdano]

luke warm, on Jul 29 2005, 12:03 AM, said:

ben touched on this earlier. in that deleted thread i believe... i've been known to play flannery (if that word offends you, substitute "stayman")... when i defended this, long ago, i took a lot of heat... i wasn't called an idiot (tho it might be difficult to prove otherwise), but i was told that most intelligent, discerning bridge players abhor that evil convention

i didn't take offense (well, not much)... even roland, the voice of reason, had trouble containing himself at the mention of the 'f' word... however, since nobody outright *called* me stupid or degenerate, i don't see any reason at all to delete any of the things said..

in the case of the deleted thread, i didn't notice anyone come under personal attack... i think if there's gonna be any censorship it should be for that reason and maybe a few others (explicit sexual content, for example - that is best left to private messages )

In fact, all this flannery-bashing makes me like to play it for some time -- it can never lose as much as you gain by your opponents thinking you are an idiot!

Arend

[the hog]

Well in one respect I can agree. Had I bid 4C I would have wanted any trace of that removed from prying eyes as well.

[whereagles]

LOOOOOOOOL

Obviously, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. But I'm not going to bother explaining you the bid.

[epeeist]

uday, on Jul 28 2005, 01:55 PM, said:

I will restore the thread when i find a moment ( selected posts deleted/edited out)

I choose not to accept responsibility for the occupation of Denmark.

No, I don't intend removal of offensive posts (nor spraycan scrawls on storefronts) to be an offence against human rights, whatever we think those are. 

Posts that need to be removed will continue to be removed.  Posts that are polite and on topic will not be touched.  Not complicated.

It's kind of uday to offer to restore the thread. Unappreciated by some, but kind.

Aside from mild curiosity, I don't really care that much myself.

People who do care might do uday the courtesy of giving thanks (as some have) for spending time to sift through a thread to restore all but the most offensive portions. Instead of, in effect, making insulting comparisons with totalitarian regimes.

This is a BBO bridge forum. Aside from the (entirely valid) arguments that it has its own rules, etc. which are agreed to by its members, let's also consider that it is a BRIDGE forum. There are many, many things which someone could post which would be legal in pretty much any jurisdiction but would be both offensive, and unrelated to discussion of bridge. If there were no rules and/or nothing was censored, this would quickly turn into a forum filled with posts wholly unrelated to bridge, offensive or not. Politics, Iraq, the space shuttle problems, favourite breeds of dog, whatever.

Personal insults -- with the possible exception of references to members of a certain Italian pair -- are unrelated to bridge. Sorry, couldn't resist that one...

I will note, more seriously, that personal insults may even, in some cases, constitute defamation. A very quick "Google" search suggests that, in point of fact, Denmark actually has criminal laws regarding defamation, referring to libel either by "accusations" or "offensive words or conduct". How interesting. I would suggest anyone with a greater interest in the topic consult a Danish lawyer.

[helene_t]

epeeist, on Jul 29 2005, 01:31 PM, said:

It's kind of uday to offer to restore the thread. Unappreciated by some, but kind.

Aside from mild curiosity, I don't really care that much myself.

People who do care might do uday the courtesy of giving thanks (as some have) for spending time to sift through a thread to restore all but the most offensive portions. Instead of, in effect, making insulting comparisons with totalitarian regimes.

Well said.

Personally, if I were a moderator I would prefer to spend my time doing something more rewarding. On another forum I'm a member of, such threads are moved to a "trash" forum. Then it's easy to filter out for those not interested in flame wars, and it's less work for the moderators.

[Brandal]

1eyedjack, on Jul 28 2005, 06:20 PM, said:

I don't know if there is much logic to it, but the deletion of a thread leaving no evidence that it ever existed seems to me to be worrying on a different level.

EXACTLY!!

I didn't read the thread Uday,I don't even know
if someone offended me?!

Seriously,unless a thread is completely degenerated
from first post......please only remove offensive remarks
and keep thread

[Brandal]

luke warm, on Jul 28 2005, 06:03 PM, said:

ben touched on this earlier. in that deleted thread i believe... i've been known to play flannery (if that word offends you, substitute "stayman")... when i defended this, long ago, i took a lot of heat... i wasn't called an idiot (tho it might be difficult to prove otherwise), but i was told that most intelligent, discerning bridge players abhor that evil convention

i didn't take offense (well, not much)... even roland, the voice of reason, had trouble containing himself at the mention of the 'f' word... however, since nobody outright *called* me stupid or degenerate, i don't see any reason at all to delete any of the things said..

in the case of the deleted thread, i didn't notice anyone come under personal attack... i think if there's gonna be any censorship it should be for that reason and maybe a few others (explicit sexual content, for example - that is best left to private messages )

A point is,you should be allowed to use F*a**ery as
you see fit,without "fear" of being verbally molested
and offended,same with any other bridgerelated issue.

If you present your "case" in a decent manner,you
should expect even the voice of reason to contain himself

Noone,and I mean NOONE has the right to offend or attack
you for presenting a case,they can argue strongly against
the case(i.e. Flannery) but NOT you for using it.

[csdenmark]

epeeist, on Jul 29 2005, 01:31 PM, said:

I will note, more seriously, that personal insults may even, in some cases, constitute defamation. A very quick "Google" search suggests that, in point of fact, Denmark actually has criminal laws regarding defamation, referring to libel either by "accusations" or "offensive words or conduct". How interesting.  I would suggest anyone with a greater interest in the topic consult a Danish lawyer.

Right we have many of such kind of laws - and all democracies based on law have that of course.

The point is decisions are made by the judicial system and by that body only

To me it really looks like many of the posters here need to think about the basics for constituting the democracies they benefit from. Freedom of expression is no god-given gift - it is an every day strugle. The story from yesterday is from Ukraine - here quoted from Daily Telegraph in UK(updated today I see): Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko

[Brandal]

csdenmark, on Jul 29 2005, 08:43 AM, said:

epeeist, on Jul 29 2005, 01:31 PM, said:

I will note, more seriously, that personal insults may even, in some cases, constitute defamation. A very quick "Google" search suggests that, in point of fact, Denmark actually has criminal laws regarding defamation, referring to libel either by "accusations" or "offensive words or conduct". How interesting.  I would suggest anyone with a greater interest in the topic consult a Danish lawyer.

Right we have many of such kind of laws - and all democracies based on law have that of course.

The point is decisions are made by the judicial system and by that body only

To me it really looks like many of the posters here need to think about the basics for constituting the democracies they benefit from. Freedom of expression is no god-given gift - it is an every day strugle. The story from yesterday is from Ukraine - here quoted from Daily Telegraph in UK(updated today I see): Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko

Your point of view is not clear to me.

Are you saying anyone can say anything they want about,
and to other people here?

Or are you debating the principle of freedom to express
yourself within the boundaries of the laws?

[helene_t]

Freedom of expression is about absence of governement censorship.

If I send a manuscript to a publisher, the publisher has the right to censor it in the sense that they will not publish it. And then I have the right to seek another publisher, or publish it myself (thanks to the internet the latter is now a real posibility).

BBO has the right to censor this board according to it's own policy, whatever that is.

[Al_U_Card]

Speaking of Flannery (2H), I even play REVERSE Flannery (2D) when I can find another i#@&! to play it on those 5 club 4 diamond, 11-16 hcp hands. If you are not careful, I will create a thread to show the convention and continuations and see how much time poor Uday has to do the sanitization....

I will accept that for advanced 2/1 enthusiasts, Flannery has diminished usefulness compared to those who play sayc. The minor suit version is, however, quite clever and keeps you out of 1NT -2 vul and 4-2 Diamond fits.....

[csdenmark]

helene_t, on Jul 29 2005, 04:01 PM, said:

Freedom of expression is about absence of governement censorship.

If I send a manuscript to a publisher, the publisher has the right to censor it in the sense that they will not publish it. And then I have the right to seek another publisher, or publish it myself (thanks to the internet the latter is now a real posibility).

BBO has the right to censor this board according to it's own policy, whatever that is.

Completely correct.

But please let me repeat. Until publishing they can deny anything they want to deny and no reason need to be given. This board has facilities for doing so - but BBO hasn't taken advantage from those. Therefore we have this debate approx. once a year.

After publishing they have no rights to touch the published material.

[epeeist]

csdenmark, on Jul 29 2005, 09:43 AM, said:

Completely correct.

But please let me repeat. Until publishing they can deny anything they want to deny and no reason need to be given. This board has facilities for doing so - but BBO hasn't taken advantage from those. Therefore we have this debate approx. once a year.

After publishing they have no rights to touch the published material.

Your analogy is fatally flawed.

When you or I post something on these forums, it gets "published" immediately.

Unlike the submission of a manuscript to a publisher, there is no opportunity for review prior to "publication". The only time it is possible to review a post is after it has already been "published".

Unless, of course, you want BBO to hire editors to review all posts before they are "published". We'll all have to pay for that service, of course. Are you seriously suggesting you would find that less intrusive and be willing to pay for it?!

Most importantly, one agrees to the rules of this forum. Which explicitly note what may happen. Which according to you are more restrictive than what the Danish government permits you to publish in Denmark.

Good!

I note, after queries both by me and brandal, you still haven't answered our questions, should anyone be free to post anything, on any topic, on these boards without deletion? Anything, ranging from political speech, to insults to specific people, to advertisements? If yes, I think that is a terrible idea (and contrary to the rules). If no, what to do with a violative post after it has been "published"?

If you don't like the rules, either (1) comply anyway out of politeness, or (2) seek to persuade BBO otherwise, or (3) leave. Perhaps these posts are your attempt at (2). I would suggest that accusing uday of oppression of Danes in a manner akin to that suffered during the Second World War is not terribly persuasive. Nor is it particularly polite. Indeed, I would call it rude.

If you think BBO's rules somehow infringe your rights under Danish law, consult a Danish lawyer. I am not a Danish lawyer. I would be very surprised, however, if that lawyer advised you that BBO had done ANYTHING wrong under Danish law.

And yes, I freely admit the irony of my replying multiple times in this thread, which has nothing to do with "General Bridge Discussion" and which it would, therefore, be appropriate to delete...

[csdenmark]

epeeist, on Jul 29 2005, 06:14 PM, said:

Your analogy is fatally flawed.

When you or I post something on these forums, it gets "published" immediately.

Unlike the submission of a manuscript to a publisher, there is no opportunity for review prior to "publication". The only time it is possible to review a post is after it has already been "published".

Unless, of course, you want BBO to hire editors to review all posts before they are "published". We'll all have to pay for that service, of course. Are you seriously suggesting you would find that less intrusive and be willing to pay for it?! 

Most importantly, one agrees to the rules of this forum. Which explicitly note what may happen. Which according to you are more restrictive than what the Danish government permits you to publish in Denmark.

Good!

I note, after queries both by me and brandal, you still haven't answered our questions, should anyone be free to post anything, on any topic, on these boards without deletion? Anything, ranging from political speech, to insults to specific people, to advertisements? If yes, I think that is a terrible idea (and contrary to the rules). If no, what to do with a violative post after it has been "published"?

If you don't like the rules, either (1) comply anyway out of politeness, or (2) seek to persuade BBO otherwise, or (3) leave. Perhaps these posts are your attempt at (2). I would suggest that accusing uday of oppression of Danes in a manner akin to that suffered during the Second World War is not terribly persuasive. Nor is it particularly polite. Indeed, I would call it rude.

If you think BBO's rules somehow infringe your rights under Danish law, consult a Danish lawyer. I am not a Danish lawyer. I would be very surprised, however, if that lawyer advised you that BBO had done ANYTHING wrong under Danish law.

And yes, I freely admit the irony of my replying multiple times in this thread, which has nothing to do with "General Bridge Discussion" and which it would, therefore, be appropriate to delete...

Whether anybody will be free to post anything here is completely up to BBO. They have decided they are not - and I think good so. But in fact not of my business. I prefer to avoid interfering with others businesses.

Once posted only the author has the legal rights to modify or delete.

------------------------------------
Danish legislation has nothing to do with this topic. I have made no comparions to danish legislation. I have explained that danish law normally complies to internationally conventions regarding human rights. That's what this is about.
-------------------------------------
The rest of your posting I cannot judge whether serious or not.

For this below

Quote

I would suggest that accusing uday of oppression of Danes in a manner akin to that suffered during the Second World War is not terribly persuasive. Nor is it particularly polite. Indeed, I would call it rude.

please find the quote. Unless you do so or come with an apology I intend to report you for false accusations.

Here is the link for my postings: csdenmark's postings

To be sure you see this message I have mailed it for you.