36 replies to this topic

[dspdrew]

I'm just going to assume the people who don't vote either don't care either way, or just aren't sure.

 

I will say, if we give the author the ability to have posts removed, it will be made very clear to anyone viewing the topic. I think this is very important.

[Tspivey16]

Free speech and written record are two different things IMO. If giving a presentation, and someone shouts obsceniteis from the crowd or engages in conduct in disregard to the presentation topic - that person would generally be removed - for a more speech like comparison.

[dspdrew]

Free speech and written record are two different things IMO. If giving a presentation, and someone shouts obsceniteis from the crowd or engages in conduct in disregard to the presentation topic - that person would generally be removed - for a more speech like comparison.

 

Generally when referring to "free speech", speech is any form of expression. Whether it's shouting, blurting out insults, making grunting noises, waving your arms around, making stupid faces, flashing your high beams even (as ruled in court), it's all considered speech.

[Tspivey16]

Sure- but you left out shouting fire in a crowded room which is not.

Perhaps better term is free speech and venue toleration are different things

[BugFinder]

 

Absolutely. We saw a good example of this issue this morning, which is what I assume sparked this conversation. When someone posts something intentionally inflammatory and incorrect, their post should be removed, per rule #6. We seem to have a particular issue with following that rule.

 

Oh callow grasshopper.  Not sure what you found false or misleading.

 

Are you asking for a thread dedicated to the debate of the factual accuracy of claims made?

 

I discussed this weeks ago with the owner of THA, and thought we were on the same page internally.  I was not made aware that one or more units had shipped to customers until pictures were posted.

 

Democracy in action!

 

 

Now that is funny!  I don't care who you are!! lol.

 

What kind of trouble do the fanboys cause?  I know there are at least one of those, probably more, but haven't noticed any trouble caused.

[drtrmiller]

 

 

Absolutely. We saw a good example of this issue this morning, which is what I assume sparked this conversation. When someone posts something intentionally inflammatory and incorrect, their post should be removed, per rule #6. We seem to have a particular issue with following that rule.

 

Oh callow grasshopper.  Not sure what you found false or misleading.

 

Are you asking for a thread dedicated to the debate of the factual accuracy of claims made?

 

I discussed this weeks ago with the owner of THA, and thought we were on the same page internally.  I was not made aware that one or more units had shipped to customers until pictures were posted.

 

Democracy in action!

 

 

Now that is funny!  I don't care who you are!! lol.

 

What kind of trouble do the fanboys cause?  I know there are at least one of those, probably more, but haven't noticed any trouble caused.

 

 

You're right.  The only people who notice are those of us who happen to live here.  It's nothing that can't be solved with clear and constant communication :~)

[BugFinder]

Well [censored], I thought I lived here too lol.

[drtrmiller]

Well, I thought I lived here too lol.

 

Those of us who not only live here, but also don't leave the house ;~)

[Crystals]

Please allow me to play the Devil's Advocate.

This discussion has moved from "Can an owner of a Journal of a Market thread, or Journal be allowed to request an Admin/Mod to remove a post that they prefer not to have" to the slightly seperate topic of "freedom of speech".

 

Freedom of speech is an interesting subject on forums and online discussion locations.

 

In theory, freedom of speech is fine - no one is afraid to ask 'dumb' questions.

 

But free speech, mixed with people in general, and "expected behaviors" is no longer true free speech.  The rules we already have in place already limit free speech somewhat, to accomadate expected behaviors.

 

This forum was originaly designed as a place where people could freely ask, learn, and share.

In most forums, people expect that they will not be responded to in a rude or a highly condescending fashion.  Those same people in return understand that they are expected to not reply in such a fashion either.

 

Let's face it - this forum, and almost all online discussion platforms - are handicapped.  We rely solely on words and phrases.  I can not tell if someone is sitting calmly in a recliner sipping tea, or if they are ranting, waving their fist in the air while trying to pound out a message on the keyboard.  How someone means to come across when they type something, is possibly not going to be received in the same fashion simply because we cannot hear a person's tone of voice, see their facial expression, or see their body language.

 

For example, there is a world of difference between the phrases, "No, no, what on earth were you thinking?" and the phrase, "I think I see the problem, would you mind trying this...".  Both observe freedom of speech and both convey that a mistake was made.  One is a bit more suited to a friendly forum.

 

How do we hope that people using this forum will behave?  How does that apply to free speech?  I will let you think that over.

 

 

Back to original topic:

Can an owner of a Journal of a Market thread, or Journal be allowed to request an Admin/Mod to remove a post that they prefer not to have?

 

Oddly enough, the current rules already cover several instances of where we can remove threads.   Sorry, Drew, I know you were after an actual simple rule so you wouldn't have to decide in each case.  Most people tend to ignore things until it hits their "limit", a person's tolerance limit varies with every person.  Which means each case will be slightly different.  I don't see any way to create a simple rule that can address a wide variety of possible situations.

 

Currently, if such a request comes in, and none of the current rules cover it, then the admin and mods tend to discuss the request in relation with the situation and it usually ends up falling under rule #1.  We do tend to move those requested posts to a new topic so people can still discuss it to their heart's content.

Anyone else have any comments or thoughts on our current system?

 

Rules are often like tetter totters.  People are usually on both sides and often the only way to come to a compromise is to try to "balance" the tetter totter.  How one balances it to keep the most people happy, is never an easy task.

[dspdrew]

Currently, if such a request comes in, and none of the current rules cover it, then the admin and mods tend to discuss the request in relation with the situation and it usually ends up falling under rule #1.  We do tend to move those requested posts to a new topic so people can still discuss it to their heart's content.

 

In my opinion rule #1 should be a last resort if it's not something covered by any of the obvious ones. Personally I don't like when a forum just randomly removes perfectly innocent posts they don't like, sort of the way antdude does quite often over on his forum. Not everybody realizes that it's happening, and they are unknowingly getting a false picture of the conversation. This is why I say, if journal authors are going to be able to remove whatever they want for whatever reason they want, this needs to be made very clear to anyone reading the journal, so they know that the conversation they see might not reflect reality at all. I think lack of free and open discussion is what leads to so much disinformation on the internet.

[Crystals]

That is a good point.

I likely don't realize how much, or if any, posts might be removed from any given thread on another forum.

[Jake]

 

Currently, if such a request comes in, and none of the current rules cover it, then the admin and mods tend to discuss the request in relation with the situation and it usually ends up falling under rule #1.  We do tend to move those requested posts to a new topic so people can still discuss it to their heart's content.

 

In my opinion rule #1 should be a last resort if it's not something covered by any of the obvious ones. Personally I don't like when a forum just randomly removes perfectly innocent posts they don't like, sort of the way antdude does quite often over on his forum. Not everybody realizes that is happening, and they are unknowingly getting a false picture of the conversation. This is why I say, if journal authors are going to be able to remove whatever they want for whatever reason they want, this needs to be made very clear to anyone reading the journal, so they know that the conversation they see might not reflect reality at all. I think lack of free and open discussion is what leads to so much disinformation on the internet.

 

I got so tired of his crap, that I ignored him on his own site.

[Silvak]

For me personally, I don't see any instance in which a post should be removed that doesn't already conflict with the already established rules.

[Tspivey16]

Well it does seem people remove entire post after they realize how crazy a topic was perhaps

[Trailandstreet]

Well it does seem people remove entire post after they realize how crazy a topic was perhaps

Ok, then the complete topic should be deleted...

[Vendayn]

What about...

 

Instead of that. A suggestion I saw another ant forum do with journals (think it was a UK based one).

 

Let the journal author "lock" his topic so only he can reply to it (or moderators/admins). But regular users can't. So some will choose to keep their topic open for everyone to respond or others that don't want people responding. Pretty sure that's how they did it. Or maybe they did it, where the author says (if he didn't want people replying) don't make posts in the journal and the moderators removed the posts.

 

Otherwise, I don't see a reason to delete a post just because the person doesn't like it for whatever reason. There should at least be a good reason for it.

[dspdrew]

Everybody has a different idea as to what a "good reason" is.