Flame Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 So many posts each one longer then the other, for a pretty simple subject.Censoring should be limit to the minimum possible, im sure everyone agree just that the creteria for when to censored differ, its legimate to ask the persons incharge to try and interfier less, this kind of remarks can only help the forum, the people incharge can benefit from knowing what the people think, no need to take it as a complain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Heh, Sorry for the thread drift but I couldn't resist .... I used SystranSoft to translate into a few foreign languages (which, to my eternal shame, like most Brits I never bothered to study) the phase "Well played partner" which I then punched into okscript. German-speaking partner had a real hoot when I later regurgitated"Brunnen getaner Partner!" (Brunnen being a hole in the ground that you get water from) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothy Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Heh, Sorry for the thread drift but I couldn't resist .... Tectonically, you succeeded admirably :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 I fully agree with Ron, BBO can just state that the posts are the sole responsability of the posters. Moderators should only deal with offtopics moving posts to the right forums and mentoring the posters about how to use the site.I found the edition or deletion of a post something arbitrary and potentially dangerous thing.I can stand what Ben and uday do as well as other moderators but I really think this forum would be better without that much intervention. Luis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uday Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 I think that likening - the erasure of a translated post that was unreadable except for ".....nazi....fascist.... " while leaving the original post alone to the WWII Germans being unable to stop an Underground movement from spreading cheer and spirit via song is intended to provoke as much as it is off the mark. Well, I am provoked :D Anyone who wants complete freedom to say whatever he or she wishes is officially invited to visit rec.games.bridge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csdenmark Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 As this thread is not about translation this will be my last post about translation. I looked the word 'well' up in my english/danish dictionary. The meaning in this order in my dictionary: 1) Somewhere to have water from in soil - waterreservoir(substantive)2) Something coming - streaming(verbum)3) Good(adv. -'I dont know what 'adv.' is )4) Healthy(adjective - only praedecative)5) Let or leave - do nothing(substantive) You see this word needs some kind of manuel translation/afterwork. Translation of 'good done partner' comes correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothy Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Well, well, well.... Nothing much to say to that :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spwdo Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 the phase "Well played partner" which I then punched into okscript. German-speaking partner had a real hoot when I later regurgitated"Brunnen getaner Partner!" (Brunnen being a hole in the ground that you get water from) hi , will defantly use this one whenever i play with a german speaking partner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 I think that likening - the erasure of a translated post that was unreadable except for ".....nazi....fascist.... " while leaving the original post alone to the WWII Germans being unable to stop an Underground movement from spreading cheer and spirit via song is intended to provoke as much as it is off the mark. Well, I am provoked :D Anyone who wants complete freedom to say whatever he or she wishes is officially invited to visit rec.games.bridge I'm tempted to leave, I really don't like when you behave and talk like a cop uday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irdoz Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 It is perfectly valid for the members of a participatory forum to have debates about the rules that govern the forum with good intentions and without intending to offend anyone. Those who ask questions should not be made to feel guilty for debating those rules. This is not about 'market forces' which are not like some pure light stick that get waved around and produce truth, justice and the you know what. It's about process... Nor for me, is there argument about deleting vulgarity. If it became a problem I wouldn't take issue with putting limits on issues that are way 'off-topic' for a bridge message board such as politics in the middle east or the forthcoming US presidential election. What was at issue here was an edict which said in relation to a particular issue: "You can talk about how you feel but you cannot talk about the substance of the issue." (This may be incorrect paraphrasing) This is an extremely problematic rule. It is censorship. It is worth debating in a calm way. In saying so I realize there are pros and cons with the edict above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doofik Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 I think that while debating the freedom of speech we're forgetting the purpose of BBO and its forum. This is not to be a political forum, a smear campaign forum, but a place to discuss bridge. Some may say that I'm hypocritical with my post on Monday. In fact I regret having posted and having said what I said, but that ire in me just doesn't quit. And words, while allegedly can't hurt, do hurt and hurt very deeply. And it's my belief that one should always say what one means, and mean what one says; but that's just me, a simple woman from a village. It is also my fervent belief that anyone who wants to quit ought to be able to do so. Don't criticize, don't send any parting shots, just quit, whether it's a club or BBO. Everything else becomes childish. Jola Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 I think that likening - the erasure of a translated post that was unreadable except for ".....nazi....fascist.... " while leaving the original post alone to the WWII Germans being unable to stop an Underground movement from spreading cheer and spirit via song is intended to provoke as much as it is off the mark. Well, I am provoked :D Anyone who wants complete freedom to say whatever he or she wishes is officially invited to visit rec.games.bridge I'm tempted to leave, I really don't like when you behave and talk like a cop uday. Just you dont leave, you cant emagine how many ppl are learning from you here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uday Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Luis I *am* one of the cops on BBO. Are you arguing that cops are not needed? Or that they should pretend not to be cops? Or that some areas of BBO, like the forums , should be a cop-free zone? The yellows on bbo wear a couple of hats: the ones we see are usually "Tour Guide", "Translator", and , occasionally "Cop". If you can present a case for a) Complete non-censorship :D Censor-free zones ( bbo.flame , where you can post what you like)B) A better procedure for censorship I will happily listen. I agree with Irdoz that this subject is worth debating in a calm way. Abuse is a fact of life in any online community, and it has to be managed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothy Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 I am *desperately* trying to think of something to write about that will cause sufficient provocation to Ben to assert his powers of policing and challenge his idea of censorship. Alas i cant :D Will just have to mutter to myself about him whilst kibbitzing and keep my halo polished... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 I have never been part of an unmoderated forum that didn't sooner or later perish from flame wars, character assination (even outright libel), grossly off-topic posts, and extreme vulgarity. I come here to read and post about bridge. I am glad that posts which:Use the f-word twice per sentence.Accuse everyone who gets an unusual result of cheating.Argue about the war in Iraq or the divinity of Christ.Assert that someone is stupid, dishonest, perverted or whatever because they don't agree with the poster or the poster doesn't like their style.get removed before I have to read them while looking for bridge. If sometimes the moderators call it a little too close for my tastes, they're human and rational people will differ about judgment calls--particularly judgement calls that must be made in a limited amount of time. I have no knowlege of what has been edited, but the moderators have let some things pass that I would have removed. My philosophy that even a borderline insult is inappropriate among civilized people. This is not intended as criticism of the moderators--no doubt adhering to a standard as stringent as mine would seem excessive to many who otherwise agree with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csdenmark Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 I wonder how the legal regulations are. Such is of great importance to be able to judge whether somebody is right, justified or wrong in what has been done. I understand there have many nerves involved in the last few days. I really thought that all knew that individuals only weapon if they are confronted with an organization is the threat to STAY. Here we have had the opposite situation - quite frankly I don't understand the upset. I don't understand the need for what has been done and has costed a lot of credibility which will take long time and be very difficult to restore. As always we are wiser afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Luis I *am* one of the cops on BBO. Are you arguing that cops are not needed? Or that they should pretend not to be cops? Or that some areas of BBO, like the forums , should be a cop-free zone? The yellows on bbo wear a couple of hats: the ones we see are usually "Tour Guide", "Translator", and , occasionally "Cop". If you can present a case for a) Complete non-censorship :D Censor-free zones ( bbo.flame , where you can post what you like)B) A better procedure for censorship I will happily listen. I agree with Irdoz that this subject is worth debating in a calm way. Abuse is a fact of life in any online community, and it has to be managed. You asked Luis , but ill give you my answer.What i want is that when you consider censoring, emphsise that you are in a class full of people who you know, they are your friends but you are incharge, then someone say something which you think shouldnt have been said, if you are going to tell him something like, "you are an idiot, you have not enough brain to be able to control your tone", this is what me or anyone else feel that we are beeing sensored, if what i said was hard enough for you to umilitae me like i said before then go ahead and censored, but if in the real life you would just say to yourself, this guy is stupid, then dont censore. The point to always keep in mind is that behind every name here there is a person with feelings, so do your best not to heart him unless upsolutly necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted April 4, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 On reflection I suspect there may be a cultural issue at work here as well. Certain nationalities are quick to call a spade a spade and not a "gardening implement". Australians for example say things as they are. Such an attitude occasionally makes for fiery exchanges, but conflicts are resolved quickly and there is no undercurrent left to sour relations. In my experience other nationalities are more concerned with "niceties". This probably has a lot to do with the differing attitudes being expressed here. Ron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogsbreath Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Hi ..Slothy .. what is 'techtonically' ? did you feel your plates move? :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 i think there needs to be moderators for a forum to be successful... all you can ask is that the ones who do the editing/deleting be objective about it it's hard to know if that's been the case... i'll personally have to assume so, in good faith, until proven otherwise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Ron's point about cultural differences is well taken. However, in any culture, there is a huge difference between: "I think convention X is poorly designed and you might want to reconsider your decision to use it." And: "How on earth could you be so blindingly stupid as to play convention X? Has there been a lot of inbreeding in your family?" I imagine the latter is a severe insult in any culture. Of course, that latter might be fine between close friends who know it isn't meant seriously--but a third party reading the forum can't know this. Obviously drawing of lines needs to be carefully and won't be nearly so clear cut as these extreme examples. And I certainly think that when in doubt, the moderators should err on the side of free speech. But there is no doubt in my mind that line drawing needs to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uday Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 I did run this thread past FG as a sanity check. He does agree with my attitudes on forums ( and bbo itself ). That is, there is no need for us to allow stuff that is harmful to other users to be posted here. He gave me a couple of examples, no need to rehash them here. Anyway, this whole censorship stuff is not as big a deal as it seems. Of the 17,000 posts we've seen, i suspect that fewer than 100 have been "moderated". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrike Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Libel and slander are are another question--it is settled law in the US and most countries that asserting "John Doe is a bridge cheat" (or any other odious thing) in a context where it is likely to be believed is not protected speech unless it is true--and the burden of proving truth is (in practice) on the speaker.As an aside, I think this is misleading. Settled law in the US is that the plaintiff in a libel case needs to prove, among other things, that the statement in question was false, not the other way around. In fact, the plaintiff has to show that the speaker knew it was false, or didn't care (the "reckless disregard" standard) "In practice" it may be otherwise (though I doubt it), but the readership should know that in theory this is clear. As you add, a successful libel action also requires a showing that the speech was likely to be believed, considering everything including the context. That's a long first step for anything posted on any public internet board. Now, back to our story. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csdenmark Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 I did run this thread past FG as a sanity check. He does agree with my attitudes on forums ( and bbo itself ). That is, there is no need for us to allow stuff that is harmful to other users to be posted here. He gave me a couple of examples, no need to rehash them here. Anyway, this whole censorship stuff is not as big a deal as it seems. Of the 17,000 posts we've seen, i suspect that fewer than 100 have been "moderated". Your argument would lead to the assumption that if you just silence all - then you have no censorship. Really the argument which was the dominant one during the cold war period as a proof for freedom. The nature of censorship is invisility and sanctions. In Denmark we from time to time have disclosure of problems in public service area. People who cannot advice correctly due to fear for their job. Loyalty yes - but to whom? We also have problems with lawyers and doctors which groups have collegial codex for no criticism. Suffering the patients only. But you see no censorship at all. In EU they simply fire all persons who discloses fraud. And in UK we recently had a case with self-suicide of a person who anononymos informed about weapons in Iraq. The problem is likely to be bigger in private sector. Business area and leisure area. I am sure we have such kind of problems in all countries and in many areas. Mostly such kind of problems are elivated by the person will be leaving. No Uday censorship has nothing to do with numbers. It is about credibility and nothing else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhutobello Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Just open my two news papers for Sunday. 1 Headline: Navy site closed down because of high posting with woman discrimination content. second headline Quarell among nieghbours cost our community (350.ooo inh) more than 10 mil a year (1.3mill dollar) Have a nice day:) Edvin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.