Censorship

[Iain Purdon]

... because whenever any of the moderators takes the rare action of which Bob speaks, someone cries "Censorship". This thread could have called anything. The title isn't the point, the underlying behaviour is.

Iain

[noelford]

I still say that removing or locking material that breaks agreed rules is NOT censorship. But to anyone who disagrees and is against 'censorship' in any form, I suggest they visit some of the totally uncensored forums. Nasty places, some of them, populated by nasty people. Yes they have a right to say mostly what they want, but I don't want to or have to read it. So let's just stick to the rules and accept that anyone who oversteps the mark will be dealt with by the mods in the appropriate way. I must say, it's ridiculous that we should even want to argue about this on a forum dedicated to the music we profess to love.

[RayL]

In the wider world, a lot of censorship (and attempted censorship) is simply to cover embarrassment, whether it be politicians being greedy or footballers trying to deny children they have created.

The work of the newspapers, the BBC, 'Parliamentary Privilege' and in particular Private Eye (who deserve special mention for standing up to bullies over the years) is vital because if those with power or money, or both, think that they can get away with censoring embarrassment then they move on to censoring real crimes. The many nasty dictatorships around the world are testament to this.

I detect that some on Shadowmusic "don't like to cause a fuss" and feel "if you can't say good about someone you shouldn't say anything". Sorry, but those who are fond of censorship see those attitudes as a sign of weakness and a little bit more freedom slips away.

It is quite possible to have a robust, healthy discussion without involving "Bad language, defamatory remarks, personal attacks on members or illegal content". Where do the mods stand on embarrassment?

Ray

[Iain Purdon]

It is quite possible to have a robust, healthy discussion without involving "Bad language, defamatory remarks, personal attacks on members or illegal content". Where do the mods stand on embarrassment?

The mods are ordinary people like anyone else here and we don't have a group stance! Personally, I wouldn't want to embarrass any of the Shadows, not that I could. I agree with your statement above about healthy robust discussion. I'd avoid personal attacks on anyone, member or not.

Iain

[David Martin]

ShadowMusic has been around, in one form or another, since I started it in 1998.

It's become clear to me that some people enjoy watching a "bloodbath" of insults and insinuation develop, and in some cases, work hard to get it going - whatever the subject matter. I believe those people should be removed, and the thread locked or removed too, depending on circumstances. (What circumstances? Lock it when it's contentious, but everything appears to have been said; remove it when we fall foul of the law.)

But, actually, it's even easier than that... just stick to the music! Keep off personalities, and be wary of trying to be amusing... it can be misconstrued.

I started all this for two reasons... to connect players of Shadows' music together - and it seems to have worked given the number of clubs it has spawned - and to encourage people - especially younger folks - to listen and learn how to play it. More than ever now, I want this music to continue to be loved and played after we've all gone... because it's good enough.

Anything else has no place here ...

[rogera]

That says it all David.

[MartcasterJunior]

I'm not sure why "censorship" is seen as a bad thing. It happens all the time, whether it's in the editing of a newspaper article, the certification of a film by the BBFC, or the thought process you go through before you say something to someone's face. The way the term gets thrown around on here you'd think this was a military dictatorship actively suppressing the will of the People. What happens on this site is moderation, not censorship. It happens for very good reasons - to keep threads on-topic, to protect people from personal attacks, to avoid duplication of postings amongst other things. To make this an active and pleasant forum to engage with.

It's *really* simple. There are a set of rules to which everyone on here has agreed to abide by if they want to be a member of a site (in the same way that you have to agree to wear pants if you want to be a member of your local gym). If an individual (or individuals) actively break those rules, the Moderators will take appropriate action which - as a very last resort - might involve the removal of posts (although this is a very rare occurrence). If people feel that's an unnecessary infringement of their Human Rights (©Daily Mail) then there's a whole unmoderated Internet out there where you can say what you want, when you want, to who you want. It's an ugly, horrible place and I'd urge you to avoid it.

Be nice to each other, stay on topic. If everyone could practice self-censorship based on those rules, the Moderators wouldn't ever need to jump into action but, if there's one thing that we know from past experience on here and on the previous MSN-based forums, that doesn't happen.

Be Nice.

Matt

[Nick Allan]

I could not agree more with what Matt has said.

There is a distinction between "moderation" and "censorship". Reasonable rules are needed on any site, just as they are needed elsewhere in life. Speaking as a lawyer, that is why we have laws - for exactly the same reason, to encourage people to behave within certain bounds and protect people from unacceptable (in life - usually categorised as "criminal") behaviour by others. Without that, life would be hell for everyone, both on the internet and in life. There is a philosophy behind that which I am sure most people understand.

If you set out the rules, then enforcing them is "moderation" not "censorship" - as at least one member has effectively pointed out. If the "rules" are regarded as reasonable (and I think we probably all agree on that) then we are, after all, talking "moderation" ie, keeping within the rules. That cannot reasonably be called "censorship".

All the best,

Nick.

[leddo]

It's become clear to me that some people enjoy watching a "bloodbath" of insults and insinuation develop, and in some cases, work hard to get it going - whatever the subject matter. I believe those people should be removed, and the thread locked or removed too, depending on circumstances. (What circumstances? Lock it when it's contentious, but everything appears to have been said; remove it when we fall foul of the law.)

The above quote from David sums it all up perfectly.

[mojolomjl]

We were all asked to read the rules of membership before we joined this great site, so if you are a member you have theoretically read ( and agreed to ) the rules. My point being if you don't like the rules don't join, if you are a member you have agreed, so this discussion should not be taking place.