Disclaimer. I do not hold anything personal against any of the persons mentioned here; I am simply writing what I answered at the Personal Message area.
<< content removed - due to violation of the rules >>
To clarify: the link was removed by someone upon daKanga's request. I've seen the link and I don't find it "that offensive" or any offensive, by the way, and there were ladies enjoying the show, actually.
I'll have a talk with others about "less moderation, if possible".
The only thing I'm really concerned with are personal insults.
If it matters - I'm not a fan of any censorship and I would NOT delete any content - in order to keep the context and responsibility. Locking the topic when it goes "south" or "sideways" is the only thing I would ever do.
Hello, thanks for your message.
Url: Subject: Are you...
<< content removed - due to violation of the rules >>
To clarify: the link was removed by someone upon daKanga's request. I've seen the link and I don't find it "that offensive" or any offensive, by the way, and there were ladies enjoying the show, actually.
To begin with:
- The request simply denotes a very short-sighted attitude.
- Having conformed to the request is even much more worse.
First of all, Mark Gungor, the one giving the conference, is a pastor, for Godness' sake!
Secondly, he is a marriage expert.
Thirdly, moderators should not be able to indiscriminately decide and act like this because “one particular someone” finds something offensive.
Moderators do not have a criteria of their own? Aren't they suppossed to be a team and discuss things first before taking action?
A not so long time ago I asked for a page explaining how this so-called team actually works only to be given patronizing or evasive answers. And here is once again proof that there is no actual team (but a bunch of people grouped under a title), nor any kind of consensus among them, agreeing to requests that make no sense, and without exercising any form of judgment before carrying them out.
Therefore, since…
- the content of the video is definitely not offensive (since the author is a person of God and made it without any kind of intention for it being offensive)
- the content of the video is very well related to the content of the post
- the request came from a person that makes a fuss of anything and everything and whose so-called arguments are rarely, if ever, backed up by anyone else
… I would kindly request that it be put back again.
I don't want to start a battle over this, but since this is definitely a case of some mod settling for the irrational tantrum of one particular person, I hope that my request be brought to a successful conclusion. I am not letting this stand as it is.
I'll have a talk with others about “less moderation, if possible”.
Not only it is possible, but it is also reversable when the moderation was mistaken or unneeded.
It shouldn't take much to actually see that the request was unreasonable, but in case it is not evident, here is the pattern of behavior of the conflicting person (P1) in question.
The poster (P1) that started the L&L mess made two very basic mistakes: 1) failed to immediately detect that it was simply a personal opinion (which P1 actually requested to the OP) given about what seems to be a particular situation (which may or may not be true) by one of its participants; and, 2) overreacted and made a generalization about the referred site.
Given the particular philosophy of P1, those previous mistakes led P1 to start the series of comments that not only started the fire, but that contain a very wrong attitude and which ends up in a lot of unneeded moderating/censorship, that is, acting as if we needed to be protected from “evil” information, sites, or comments: “do NOT visit this site is my recommendation.”
For goodness sake! Are we in children in kindergarden?
In many occasions I have expressed my being against this unneeded protectionist attitude from the moderating “team” (though I can mention a few particular ones, I cannot say if everyone does it, thus the quotes). I would given an emphatic vote for this parental protectionism to be stopped.
The only thing I'm really concerned with are personal insults.
I totally agree about the avoiding personal insults (and to this I have agreed before) as long as they are actual insults and not actual facts. For example:
I'm the L&L admin. << fact (or one assumes to be so)
Your comments are absurd. << opinion (however, the comments are the ones being absurd, not the person, so this is not a personal insult)
You were banned in October 2023, << fact (or one assumes to be so)
so the bitterness is understandable. << here it got personal
Many members use both sites without a problem. << fact
As a side note, I do not know if P1 is still a member of the moderating team, or not. If the answer is affirmative, it is then disappointing to see that two (“[…] so the bitterness is understandable”) members of the team have been the ones behind the chaotic situation. The posts from the regular participants have been just consequence.
I also see a few “Removed by request” texts, but from what I kind of recall having read, those parts did not contain any personal insults.
So… this whole censoring that has been occurring at the thread seems only to be caused by one person alone and because of this person's very particular way of being.
As if things were already not bad enough at the forum, this whole situation definitely starts to feel like a witch hunt in medieval times, where the only thing that is required for anything to be censored is having someone pointing a finger and saying "this is offensive," and without anyone questioning the person and demanding the need and obligation to indicate and explain where the true offense lies.
If it matters — I'm not a fan of any censorship and I would NOT delete any content — in order to keep the context and responsibility.
Unfortunately, some members (and ex-members) of the team have done that and keep on doing that without any kind of criteria, internal consensus, and warning (discussing it with the person affected before taking action).
I don't have a problem when the fault is clear and definite, and I have failed on this at maybe a couple of occassions. I was told about it, and without any fuss I accepted my mistake and fixed the post.
In this particular case, however, I do want that the one responsible fixes his/her mistake and put the removed link back.
As proven above, moderators do make mistakes, so I hope that their title does not exempt them from fixing theirs.
If it matters — I'm not a fan of any censorship and I would NOT delete any content — in order to keep the context and responsibility.
Yes, it does matter indeed! It is good to know it, and I thank you for your comment in this regard.
In many occassions I have expressed my posture against censorship because while it may “solve” things in the short term, it only worsens things in the long run.
Locking the topic when it goes “south” or “sideways” is the only thing I would ever do.
Rather than locking, I would suggest:
- Move the problematic section to a new thread.
- Make it private.
- Initially set the heated parties involved as members of this private thread.
- Allow anyone else the possibility to be given access to the thread by using a dialog box to confirm that the user is aware that it has content that could be questionable or hurtful
⇒ access could instead be given by requesting it to the admin or to the mods, but this could lead to complaints against either of them not providing it, thus, it is always better to let users be responsible of their own choices;
⇒ maybe a brief guide about these private threads could be made so everyone interested in getting into one becomes fully aware of the possible implications.From my point of view, this scheme would allow the forum to development in a more healthier way. The amount of current said and unsaid complains is basically the result of many unresolved issues because of censorship.
p.s.
Regarding moderators, by the way, they should not hide behind the “Duome Team” anonymous title. Whatever each moderator does (as a moderator, of course), s/he should let his username be visible and be publicly accountable for her/his moderation.
Moderator's actions should be as open as that of the regular participants.
I don't remember if I included the following text at the end of my message, but I had it saved at a text note:
If for some unreasonable matter that cannot be done, I would then emphatically request that the misleading message “Offensive content behind the link” be edited to denote the real reason for having edited my post, that is, let the message say: “daKanga complained about an innocuous link that was not of her liking”.