Southsheff Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Doesn't seem to be censorship of debate or opinions in any of the threads I've read. Just looks like when debate spirals into name calling/ranting and personal attacks on other posters it gets closed down. I often wonder if it's a deliberate tactic by emotional members who feel they are losing face/the debate. People are free to continue debates on private messages or other media. This place is a profit-driven business so why would they allow anonymous, non-paying individuals to harm their business? I don't really agree with censorship and moderation of any kind but I can understand why a business would do it rather than be held responsible for the actions/opinions of its members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted October 30, 2013 Author Share Posted October 30, 2013 What makes you think they will be settled by having those words? It won't always but it is better than physically fighting, it is sometime enough to get something off your chest and we can even enjoy the contest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southsheff Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 It won't always but it is better than physically fighting, it is sometime enough to get something off your chest and we can even enjoy the contest! I suspect differences between posters would be settled far more quickly if physically fighting was required to voice their opinions. People are amazingly more aggressive and zealous on cyberspace. Do you think debates should be allowed to continue once they reach the name calling/personal attack stage that most inevitably end up at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 I suspect differences between posters would be settled far more quickly if physically fighting was required to voice their opinions. People are amazingly more aggressive and zealous on cyberspace. Do you think debates should be allowed to continue once they reach the name calling/personal attack stage that most inevitably end up at? Remember... the thread isn't just about this forum. But seeing as you asked, this is my opinion. I think the mods approach is fine up to the point where it become too much hassle for them to keep policing a thread. I can understand why they would choose to close it but I do not understand why they delete all the content. Some people put a lot of effort into constructing arguments and sourcing evidence and it seems a waste, and disrespectful, to just delete it. I also think it is a counter-productive for maintaining, or raising the standard of posts and threads because it risks driving away the debators. I would prefer they issued bans to the offenders and deleted posts back to the point where the thread was last moderated to try and save as much content as possible. I think that would help to retain the debaters, push away offenders and raise standards. Beyond this forum the problem is more difficult to fix.For example, I do not (generally) like the idea of police policing the internet. I think that people should be left to self-police as much as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I believe that censoring debate is divisive and will lead to people with different beliefs and opinions moving further apart. I therefore ask the forum... If people are denied a war of words then how will differences be settled? I'm in agreement. Peoples opinions reflect their fears and only by tackling these fears can people learn the truth or stand up to what they feel is wrong. Lies and deceit are quickly exposed by a thorough discussion made up by people from both sides of a discussion and do not require moderation unless they get offensive. Stifling open discussion causes people to talk in-would towards those who are already in agreement with their opinion and only causes further tension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I suspect differences between posters would be settled far more quickly if physically fighting was required to voice their opinions. What would that prove though, being able to win in a fight doesn't somehow make your opinions correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manlinose Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Turns out you have to jump through hoops to close an account. But even then it doesn't get deleted. What a shock. And Mel,stop brown nosing. Its undignified. you don't have to jump through hoops to effectively close your account - there is a little x in the top right hand corner of the screen - just click on it and all your problems will be resolved ---------- Post added 31-10-2013 at 09:39 ---------- I do not (generally) like the idea of police policing the internet. I think that people should be left to self-police as much as possible. but how do you deal with those who can't or won't without police/moderators in the real world, self policing is preferable and works to some extent, but you still need some form of authority to stop those who won't from disrupting and damaging the lives of those who do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 but how do you deal with those who can't or won't without police/moderators in the real world, self policing is preferable and works to some extent, but you still need some form of authority to stop those who won't from disrupting and damaging the lives of those who do I agree. That is why I put 'generally' in brackets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillpig Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 If you any comments on forum moderation, please contact the help desk. Call it a citizens arrest ;) Hello, this is my first day following my latest ban. on both occasions I have contacted the help desk and have requested information as to why I have been banned, this is not in the way of a complaint, I merely seek guidance so that I may avoid further bans. Is there any possibility I may be favored with the courtesy of a reply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I'm in agreement. Peoples opinions reflect their fears and only by tackling these fears can people learn the truth or stand up to what they feel is wrong. Lies and deceit are quickly exposed by a thorough discussion made up by people from both sides of a discussion and do not require moderation unless they get offensive. Stifling open discussion causes people to talk in-would towards those who are already in agreement with their opinion and only causes further tension. Inviting discussion can help level the playing field but it's not always offered and if it is, peoples' readiness to believe what they are told carries more weight because it's what people want to believe and therefore the opportunity of response isn't taken. That's the reason why sensationalit BS headlines are used in the papers. It's all about influencing public opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.