Site moderation feedback

Uncleskinny

It's all good
Subscriber
I see folk slagging off this site again, complaining that their 'free-speech' has been compromised.

Not one of these lazy f***ers will get off their fat arses and go and start a site that they can run how the hell they like.

All I'm hearing is wah wah wah. Well tough. David's site, David's rules. Now go start your own.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I don't think anybody was saying it isn't David's site or David's rules. The opposite is true. David preaches free speech, allows anonymous users but treats anonymous users like lepers. This is David's site and it's awash with racist and homophobic content. The content of members goes largely unchecked. He could do two things

ban anonymous posters
deal with homophobic/racist members

It's not going to happen.

Skinny constantly challenges racist content but his interventions could be reduced with active moderation.
 

!Viva Hate!

pls scream inside your heart ⚧
You might also like to consider: if you're a banned user trying to circumvent your ban by posting anonymously, then don't be surprised if your posts are removed.
But that wouldn't be you would it... ?
FWD.

CF8F417E-8AAA-47D5-A0BF-2194FDC126B2.gif
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I see folk slagging off this site again, complaining that their 'free-speech' has been compromised.

Not one of these lazy f***ers will get off their fat arses and go and start a site that they can run how the hell they like.

All I'm hearing is wah wah wah. Well tough. David's site, David's rules. Now go start your own.

Morrissey's life. Morrissey's rules.

No. It doesn't make sense does it?

You've hoisted yourself with your own petard.
 

bhops

Last of the famous international screw ups.
I see folk slagging off this site again, complaining that their 'free-speech' has been compromised.

Not one of these lazy f***ers will get off their fat arses and go and start a site that they can run how the hell they like.

All I'm hearing is wah wah wah. Well tough. David's site, David's rules. Now go start your own.
Read the first page of this thread and then this post and you gotta laugh at the stones on this guy ^^
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Moderation is arbitrary.
User policy is suitably vague and is in dire need of a rewrite and update.
David claims the user policy was updated but won't highlight the changes made?
Moderators act like petulant children when challenged.
Members are urged to "stand behind your words" with racists taking this as a call to arms. It's a naive statement that should be removed.
Hofmann* hasn't been banned for repeated abuse.
Pippistrella* hasn't been banned for repeated abuse.
Raise a concern and three things may occur:
you'll be slapped down by a moderator
you'll be ignored
your post will never appear

Skinny boldy shouts that it's David's site, David's rules. I don't disagree. He's responsible for all of the racism etc. that poisons this site. He has shown that when it suits him (mostly when the moderation is criticized) he does move/delete/censor content. The buck stops with David.

Why so coy when it comes to racism etc?

I don't doubt the complexities of managing a forum like this and the time commitment but neither is an excuse for allowing consistent streams of racist, anti-immigrant, anti-semitic, homophobic content.

* examples to be found throughout this forum. Easy to locate for anyone seriously interested including moderators, David.
 

Pippistrella

Well-Known Member
Moderation is arbitrary.
User policy is suitably vague and is in dire need of a rewrite and update.
David claims the user policy was updated but won't highlight the changes made?
Moderators act like petulant children when challenged.
Members are urged to "stand behind your words" with racists taking this as a call to arms. It's a naive statement that should be removed.
Hofmann* hasn't been banned for repeated abuse.
Pippistrella* hasn't been banned for repeated abuse.
Raise a concern and three things may occur:
you'll be slapped down by a moderator
you'll be ignored
your post will never appear

Skinny boldy shouts that it's David's site, David's rules. I don't disagree. He's responsible for all of the racism etc. that poisons this site. He has shown that when it suits him (mostly when the moderation is criticized) he does move/delete/censor content. The buck stops with David.

Why so coy when it comes to racism etc?

I don't doubt the complexities of managing a forum like this and the time commitment but neither is an excuse for allowing consistent streams of racist, anti-immigrant, anti-semitic, homophobic content.

* examples to be found throughout this forum. Easy to locate for anyone seriously interested including moderators, David.
Don't tune in then if you don't have the balls to face full-spectrum diversity of opinion. Man up or go visit the Guardian who will echo all your own opinions back at you. Snowflake.
 

Mozmar

Well-Known Member
Can someone provide a link to the site terms & conditions, or whatever they're called, which have been revised since this new site's been developed?
I can't find them anywhere.
 

evennow

Writers on the storm
bottom of every page...lol, the only place I never go to...thanks evennow.

You got it. (y)

This is the section that gets the most attention, and is often debated quite...energetically let's say...

6. MEMBER CONDUCT
You agree to not use the Service to:

  1. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable
 

Mozmar

Well-Known Member
You got it. (y)

This is the section that gets the most attention, and is often debated quite...energetically let's say...

6. MEMBER CONDUCT
You agree to not use the Service to:

  1. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable

Like minds and all that...

You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws.
 

evennow

Writers on the storm
Like minds and all that...

You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws.

The crux of most of the arguments made on the subject fall on how one defines "objectionable." What is objectionable to one person may be the strongly held belief of another with everyone having the right to express their thoughts without the vagaries of censorship looming over every post.

I understand that some view certain posters' opinions on race, ethnicity, and sexual preference as offensive, and again as you point out above, the terms allow for moderation if a post is "likely to offend." I think the more that is left up to interpretation the more room there is for argument. It might just be best to remove the word objectionable and the term likely to offend from the agreement. Just my two cents.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OFF TOPIC

The comment below appears in the thread "Leeds - First Direct Arena (Mar. 6, 2020) post-show" It'd be helpful to know why this remains in the thread when other comments from the same thread were deemed Off Topic and were removed swiftly.

Before the 90s almost everyone was 'homophobic'. And I'm talking back to the beginning of time. In fact most cultures around the world still are proudly homophobic - most of Africa and Asia for example (most Muslims around the world would happily hurl all gays from tall buildings). It's only after concentrated gay lobbying and mass propaganda disseminated from every western company and corporation from Apple to local police forces that it is now supposedly 'accepted' in the west - on a slightly threatening 'or else' basis.

But look at the bigger picture. In history this could only be a blip of a fashion trend, who knows? Perhaps twenty years from now people will say 'Enough' i.e. I don't want this stuff enforced upon my innocent kids with drag queens in their classrooms etc. Perhaps the aggressive gay lobby will go overboard and over-estimate people's tolerance and it may have to be all packed away back into the closet.

Kiddies-rainbow-waving celebratory gayness for all the family is one thing. Fisting at three-day long chemsex parties is another.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The crux of most of the arguments made on the subject fall on how one defines "objectionable." What is objectionable to one person may be the strongly held belief of another with everyone having the right to express their thoughts without the vagaries of censorship looming over every post.

I understand that some view certain posters' opinions on race, ethnicity, and sexual preference as offensive, and again as you point out above, the terms allow for moderation if a post is "likely to offend." I think the more that is left up to interpretation the more room there is for argument. It might just be best to remove the word objectionable and the term likely to offend from the agreement. Just my two cents.

Or expressly define objectionable behaviours within the context of this site. That way objectionable behaviours are not open to interpretation within the site.
 

Mozmar

Well-Known Member
The crux of most of the arguments made on the subject fall on how one defines "objectionable." What is objectionable to one person may be the strongly held belief of another with everyone having the right to express their thoughts without the vagaries of censorship looming over every post.

I understand that some view certain posters' opinions on race, ethnicity, and sexual preference as offensive, and again as you point out above, the terms allow for moderation if a post is "likely to offend." I think the more that is left up to interpretation the more room there is for argument. It might just be best to remove the word objectionable and the term likely to offend from the agreement. Just my two cents.

Yes.

MEMBER CONDUCT
Interestingly:
You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Under no circumstances will we be liable in any way for any Content...

Yet:
MEMBER CONDUCT
You agree to not use the Service to:
  1. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
So, you may be exposed to something which members, by registering (I presume) & coming here, have agreed not to do...but if you are exposed to it, we (Solo) have no liability.

OK, so I get that we can't have full, real-time monitoring/moderation, which therefore suggests, that conduct is reliant on 'members' reporting posts which they find objectionable, for whatever reason, provided that objectionable item fits into any of the above categories, & someone (mods) happen to agree with it being objectionable.

Are 'anonymous' posters considered 'members'? I suspect not.

So, if that's the case, then they are maybe not subject to the TOU, & in these circumstances, again any moderation is, in effect, reliant on 'members' reporting objectionable content, & will only be removed if the mods agree with it being 'objectionable'.

So, common denominator for the enforcement, or application of the site rules/TOU, is the moderator. Application of said rules is triggered either by the moderator seeing the content him/her self, taking action, or the content being reported to them by a member.

Irony is though, these elements, which I would class as sub-elements of the man category of 'objectionable' (threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable) in particular, are ever present on this site, yet they seem to be permitted with impunity.

Am I missing something?

Edit: These are the kinds of things which I personally find 'objectionable':

  • Calling someone in a hateful manner: You aul racist bastard.

  • Vulgarly stating that: Someone loves paedos!

  • Abusively & vulgarly advising someone to: Try being less of a racist cunt.

  • Comment: Paedos are in synagogues, mosques and Hindu temples too. Unfortunately they exist everywhere. In every nation and institution.
  • Vulgar & harassing Response: You’d know. You love ‘em!
 
Last edited:

bhops

Last of the famous international screw ups.
Moderation is arbitrary.
User policy is suitably vague and is in dire need of a rewrite and update.
David claims the user policy was updated but won't highlight the changes made?
Moderators act like petulant children when challenged.
Members are urged to "stand behind your words" with racists taking this as a call to arms. It's a naive statement that should be removed.
Hofmann* hasn't been banned for repeated abuse.
Pippistrella* hasn't been banned for repeated abuse.
Raise a concern and three things may occur:
you'll be slapped down by a moderator
you'll be ignored
your post will never appear

Skinny boldy shouts that it's David's site, David's rules. I don't disagree. He's responsible for all of the racism etc. that poisons this site. He has shown that when it suits him (mostly when the moderation is criticized) he does move/delete/censor content. The buck stops with David.

Why so coy when it comes to racism etc?

I don't doubt the complexities of managing a forum like this and the time commitment but neither is an excuse for allowing consistent streams of racist, anti-immigrant, anti-semitic, homophobic content.

* examples to be found throughout this forum. Easy to locate for anyone seriously interested including moderators, David.
Has it ever...... ummmm...... has it ever occurred to you that you're not going to win this?
 
Top Bottom