Jump to content

Moderators and Postings


reader
 Share

Recommended Posts

Could I suggest if the moderators are going to block/remove a post they do so and not leave the posting there with the message.

 

Sorry, but only users granted special access can read topics in this forum.

 

See The Longford One that has 3 pages

 

Like others have said the only way to achieve that is to delete the topic entirely, which means the moderators can't even discuss it.

Sometimes a thread is re-introduced if the moderators agree that it is not going to cause problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderators cut a lot of slack these days, BUT as you ALL know, putting the Forum into a position of possible legal proceedings, ie naming names, is a NO-NO.

 

The topic was discussed by the moderators "before" removal. Steve happened to be the one available to do it.

 

I notice that the vulgarity is starting to creep in, so perhaps self-censorship isn't working.

Your choice guys.

Do you want "Mary Whitehouse" censorship back or not???????? :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do know about moderating, one of the sites has circa 20k page hits a day - just an observation

 

So to try and accommodate your observation are you suggesting we should

1. Totally delete an item which has been moderated

2. Not moderate a topic which could get us in trouble

3. Something else?

:?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could I suggest if the moderators are going to block/remove a post they do so and not leave the posting there with the message.

 

Sorry, but only users granted special access can read topics in this forum.

 

See The Longford One that has 3 pages

 

Like others have said the only way to achieve that is to delete the topic entirely, which means the moderators can't even discuss it.

Sometimes a thread is re-introduced if the moderators agree that it is not going to cause problems.

Seems fair enough to me Gary.

 

8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

brownnose.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need to terminate a conversation because you object to the odd word. The word should be deleted and the converation allowed to continue. Removing the topic is totally over the top.

 

So are you volunteering to pay up if we end up in court?

 

The law states that once we edit something we become liable for it. So I am not prepared to take that chance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need to terminate a conversation because you object to the odd word. The word should be deleted and the converation allowed to continue. Removing the topic is totally over the top.

 

So are you volunteering to pay up if we end up in court?

 

The law states that once we edit something we become liable for it. So I am not prepared to take that chance!

Eagle, I think the difference here from most forums, is that WW is also a publishing enterprise in its own right, so there is far more legal reponsibility at hand. I know that the Aberdeen newspaper closed their forum for just this reason, and it was nothing like as bust as this site is, but they just wouldn't take the risk. And compared to the other forum, where there are no links and a far heavier moderating hand is applied, then I think the balance is right here.

 

I understand where Gary is coming from, I didn't see the big issue with the Longford One thread myself, but can see why the naming of a certain company may have been difficult for WW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can accept what you are both saying but whilst it is deemed out of order to name this "certain company", why is Pink Ladies discussed until most of us are sick to death of it?

Because the Pink Ladies one (which has been locked several times) is discussing a factual incident where I know all those involved so if anyone says anything out of turn I can pass the litigation over to them.

The Longford topic was started by someone who actually posted under a "don't tell them your name" user name!

:roll:

My final (hopefully) point on this matter is as Editor (and Managing Director) I have to make decisions to protect the integrity of this publication and company.

That is my legal duty as a director.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderators cut a lot of slack these days, BUT as you ALL know, putting the Forum into a position of possible legal proceedings, ie naming names, is a NO-NO.

 

The topic was discussed by the moderators "before" removal. Steve happened to be the one available to do it.

 

I notice that the vulgarity is starting to creep in, so perhaps self-censorship isn't working.

Your choice guys.

Do you want "Mary Whitehouse" censorship back or not???????? :roll:

 

Who is Mary Whitehouse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...