Censorship on motion 4

[Andy Howie]

Number of times I have had to moderate on this forum is less than 10 since the forum started (source Mod logs). Number of posting bans is 1 and I think that was the old forum.

Forum normally flows nicely and there is little to no need for moderation.

We rarely use the ban stick even though there has been calls for it from others and we try to be even handed.

As it was suggested I was being unfair I have asked Andrew to review it for me. It would be disingenuous of me to comment on it while he is doing so but I will always try to treat people the same.

For the avoidance of doubt so that people realise why I did not act on the thread sooner. I took a week off work to spend with my family, away from chess, and went out with the kids. As I think Dougie said once, we are unpaid volunteers and not on duty 24/7. I heard there had been an issue and I also heard that Andrew had responded. I know know that to be the case.

Have I been unfair today? Going by the messages I have received then it would appear that most people agree with my actions, however I am not above reproach, despite a comment I read earlier about all the power I have (aye right!). A wee tip for anyone out there thinking of volunteering for something with CS. If it is power you are looking for, you are in the wrong organisation! I'm hoping after a good nights sleep, sense will prevail.

Tomorrow is another day...

[Andrew McHarg]

Andrew (McHarg), whilst i may agree with your sentiments, your actions smack of censorship. Not only do you deny everyone freedom of speech and right of reply on that thread; you also did not allow anyone to comment on your actions. I believe that you genuinely feel that you are doing the right thing but it is leaving you personally open to claims of abuse of power.

Censorship to some degree is always going to happen in situations where moderation is required (moderation is - to a degree - censorship). I tend to leave the topics to take their own paths but that previous one got completely out of hand. It makes a complete mockery of Chess Scotland if outsiders come and view our forum and find everyone launching scathing insults at each other. People had plenty of opportunities to post on that topic, and I did state in it that the personal insults need to stop - which they didn't. I also do not believe that I denied anyone their right to comment on my actions, you're commenting on them right now are you not?

I also fail to see how anyone could claim my actions to be an abuse of power. It comes to the point where someone needs to put the foot down and decide when enough is enough. I'm not preventing anyone from discussing motion 4, and indeed if you want to start another topic to discuss it then feel free. I wasn't about to go through the previous topic and start editing out all the nonsense. It became more like a text vesion of the Jerry Springer Show than anything else. Instead of singling people out and probably creating further animosity, the obvious answer was to bin the topic and start again afresh.

[George Murphy]

It's not censorship.

Any contributor to a public forum knows full well that his submission needs to pass over a threshold. That hurdle is determined by an editor (here named Moderator), who exercises judgement intended to comply with set criteria. Some of the posts that have been deleted showed contempt for common decency. Even children - Juniors, remember? - read these threads.

So, well done Moderator. And you have not banned the message, only the offensive detritus. Let's stick to reasoned and balanced debate. There will always be issues to be aired; but they don't include personal grievances and slights.

It's like Meg nursing her wrath to keep it warm...

[David Deary]

Agreed its not censorship.

I also agree that posts should pass a threshold. One post on that topic related to me personally and made quite an accusation against me on a public forum. It was me who had to highlight it to the moderators before the poster reworded their post. In fairness, the moderator handled my concerns quickly and discreetly (as it should be).

I have a life and family outside chess and for my family/work colleagues to read some of the stuff on this forum directed at me against my 'real' name was not good. Had I not picked up on it, I have no doubt it would have been left there as if it were a fact.

For me this is one of the biggest downsides of having to use your ‘real’ name on the board. When someone accuses you of something or makes a slur against you, you have to defend it because it is made against your name. At least being able to post privately your reputation out with chess is not at risk of being damaged by the haphazard posters on this forum.

I am in the same boat as Angus. Posts have to be moderated fairly and evenhandedly and that includes moderating the post of friends. I don’t envy the job of the two Andys at all.

[Mike Scott]

I am in the same boat as Angus

Should make for a lively debate.

[George Murphy]

David

The Moderator wrote on another thread:

I will be releasing a set of forum rules as soon as possible so that everyone knows where they stand.

If you have any queries regarding any of the above then feel free to email or PM either Andy or me.
Andrew McHarg
Administrator

[i](I'm barely semi-computer literate, so please bear with me if I haven't quoted this exactly...)[/i]

I'm not being disrespectful or dismissing your observation lightly, but the Moderator did explain why he 'chopped off the lot'. Let's give him time to devise the new criteria/rules. Meanwhile, think 'New brooms sweep clean.' 'Babies and bath water.' Hopefully, the new criteria will stop it being necessary to sieve out the babies...

George

[Andrew McHarg]

It was me who had to highlight it to the moderators before the poster reworded their post. In fairness, the moderator handled my concerns quickly and discreetly (as it should be).

Actually the poster in question changed their post themselves before there was any intervention by me. I think they realised that it wasn't the right thing to direct at an individual personally.

Please note that I do not always read everything that everyone posts. As a result I'm never going to spot everything that might be verging on the offensive, and so drawing things to my attention might be the first I've seen of it.

[David Deary]

I am in the same boat as Angus

Should make for a lively debate.

... lets hope no-one mentions independence/separation. =o

Actually the poster in question changed their post themselves before there was any intervention by me. I think they realised that it wasn't the right thing to direct at an individual personally.

I'm not sure if that was before or after I objected to it in a subsequent post on the topic. The main thing is common sense prevailed and it was amended.

Hopefully, the new criteria will stop it being necessary to sieve out the babies...

Hopefully so

[Andy Howie]

Interesting way to try to have a fresh start...

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4625

Needless to say I am not going to reply. I respect Carl too much for that.

[Mike Mitchell]

Sheer madness. Adults bickering and mud-slinging, instead of trying to find constructive ways to benefit and progress junior chess. Thoroughly cheesed off with the whole thing. Have a look at yourselves.

Pretty much sums it up for me.

Not much in that thread to encourage MSPs, MPs, corporate sponsors et al to consider engaging in a relationship with Chess Scotland. Passions run high when families are involved but to do this sort of thing publicly... well, I despair. Keep it in the dressing room - just like Kevin Pietersen should have done.

Well done mods for stepping in.