Do you think the "Erie Land Light Forum" should have been censored?

This is the kind of thing that happens when inquiring minds ask questions that someone doesn't want answered.

No I don't think there should have been any censorship, and Pam has stated the obvious reasons elegantly.

Deleting those posts definitely makes it look like somebody is embarrassed and needs to hide something.

I also feel strongly that before the forum moderator took these steps that he should have contacted the individuals whose posts he was about to delete.

Because he didn't, he owes each of those folks a public apology.

MOST IMPORTANTLY. I do not believe that anything said in that thread was OFF SUBJECT. Every single post deleted had to do with the "Lake Erie Land Light" and why it is being produced. EVERY POST!

DANIEL, didn't your mother teach you better manners?

Judy

Since this is a board run by volunteers, each moderator has the ability to control his or her forum with basic oversight tools. Daniel started a thread to report on the forum exclusive lighthouse which clearly went off on a tangent. A suggestion was made to move part of the discussion to The Fog Signal Building which would appear to be the more appropriate setting. When the discussion continued, Daniel chose to delete the posts that he saw as not related to his thread and to close the thread. The Fog Signal building is still available to discuss any topic. Would another moderator handle this in another way? Probably, but I don’t think we should question Daniel’s motives anymore than we should question Ross’s for posting his information. As a moderator, I don’t know of any easy way that we have of moving several topics to a different location within the forums. Perhaps the Saints can, but most of them are tied up elsewhere. Daniel did what he could to get the topic back on course. I don’t see anyone saying that you can’t discuss another topic in another area, so I am not sure this is censorship as much as editing. As I say, maybe it could have been done differently, but sometimes we do the best we can with what we have to work with.

Yes he did. He wrote to Ross and told him that he (Daniel) felt like he was now a target. Then he makes a post saying that it looked like no one wanted to discuss the HL piece, and immediately he deleted posts.

Hey, I'm a moderator too. This is not the way he should have handled this, and if he had taken a minute to think, he would have handled it differently. I trust.

Now, tell me how exactly,how those posts could be moved to another topic? DANIEL deleted them.

I stand beside my previous post...the deleted posts were not off topic...just deliberately misinterpreted, and attacked accordingly.

Judy

Well said Jim!

Cathy

Yes , speaking of censorship. Cathy, you were the one who wrote to Ross and told him he had no right coming "over here" and stating his opinions.

Judy (I still live in America)

Judy,
I was commenting on Jim's comments about Daniel doing the best he could. I was on the lighthousing.net website and you're not posting over there..

Cathy

I agree that the posts should've been moved and if the moderator of the Fog Signal section was around, maybe he could've switched them to that area with an up-to-date reminder of what was goinmg on and to "play nice", but not being a moderator, I don't know if one can go into another's "playground" and swap/start threads like that. One probably can would be my guess, which in that case it should've been done and not deleted as not everyone had been in on the conversation to know of it's existence, much less what it was about. So, if Dennis could've done it, he should've, then closed that topic, though some who were not around the last week or so may still have comments on the piece in question; but it's kinda water under the bridge now anyway. :rolleyes:

Steve

The moderators cannot move part of a thread to my knowledge. Maybe the Saints can, but we only have limited abilities within our own forum. As to moving them now, I don't think they can be recovered, but it would seem pretty easy to re-create the basic questions within those threads, perhaps with a bit less edge to them.

There were very little complaints the last time Daniel Censored a posting because he simply didn't like the wording of the post and when John Chidester glossed over the whole thing, It kinda gives the green light to censorship.

That 's right, we're not. We put a lock on the thread to end it, but the posts are still there to be read. The lock just means no more posts can be added.

We didn't censor, or erase.

Nor did we take the stand that because a MEMBER has a small # of posts, he has no rights to post an offer of help or post an opinion, (neither of which were OFF SUBJECT) or in Ross's case, also speak up for himself after several "saintly" ole timers attacked him for offering that help.

We also have not threatened to ban any of the members here who post there for stating their opinions, even though they only have a few posts.

Makes me wonder why many of you even bother to welcome new members. What are you welcoming them to? A period of silence until they have a set number of posts? And then you wonder why new members don't stick around.

Judy

Mark, is that in reference to my "poor choice of words" in ribbing Bob Ott for being a potential E-Bayer??

Steve

Just out of curiosity...I missed this. Since I'm on this stupid dial-up connection, I've been skipping reading a lot of threads. It seems something big went down in this one, but now it's all gone.

I don't mean to flare anything up or anything...if someone could just give me a basic, neutral description, either on- or off-board (email link at the top of this post), I'm kind of curious.

Yes Steve

Yeah, I didn't see the biggie in that one either, but that was changed due to what was thought best for the group as a whole; kinda a big brother protecting us from ourselves...like the gov't!! Did I say that?? :p

Steve

Everyone of you before you log on had to register. The following is what you all had agreed on.
Everyone of you agreed that it is okay for me or any other forum member to delete if he or she feels warranted to. There is no debate. I am aloud to and I did. I didn’t like all the bashing and I don’t have to put up with it. You guys can do your “word wars” at the Fog Signal Building. I am not stopping anyone from continuing his or her discussion. Just not on my turf. I didn’t delete because I wanted to cover everything up. I deleted because I was ashamed of all the negative and revengeful posts. I wanted it to stop and everyone forgive each other and move on.
I had six emails asking me to put a stop to all the verbal bashing. Five said delete and one said to transfer. It was morning when I read my email and I was busy at work. I stopped what I was doing and I purge the post. I didn’t think of transferring until I read the one post and by that time it was to late. I also am not sure about if I can transfer. Never did it before.

I have read all the post debating if censoring should be aloud. Go ahead and debate but the final answer is Yes. You all have already agreed to it.

I agree with you all the way Jim. Daniel did as he felt he should do based on the emails that he said he received. I know that one of them came from me requesting to either close or delete the thread. I can also see by the poll on this subject that over half of the 11 that voted also think he did the right thing.

I would imagine that John can retrieve the information when he returns, but, all that is going to do is add fuel to the fire. The bashing should be stopped by all of us now. Those of us that love and are happy with this website, and those that are upset with this site, have nothing to gain by keeping up this name calling. Let's see what the poll reveals and maybe in the future a different stratagy can be used if something like this occurs again.

Daniel - Thank you for posting what you just did.

I will add my thoughts here.

Daniel is correct - the agreement says he can do what he did. I however don't aggree that the level of the statements made in the thread that was "edited" rose to the required level for an action of the type he took.

I am not questioning his motives in reacting the way he did. I do however worry about his intrepetation of his duties- by his definition he can go in and take out anything he doesn't agree with. I believe one has to look at not only the letter of a rule but also the spirit of the rule. Editing is to be used only in the most egregious situations, not just because you don't like something.

I suggested closing the thread and opening two other threads one in that Forum and one in the forum About forums so that the two aspects of the topic could be discussed individually. this can be done by Saints and by Moderators of the Forums in question working together.

Judy is basically correct- the majority of the posts did deal with the Eire Land Light Project.

The only ones that did not deal completely with it were responses made to charges and countercharges made in reference to aspects of the topic.

I do agree that possibly using the term censorship is incorrect- technically it is editing but the end result is to censor people's thoughts on a topic they have every right to express- again for the most part.

We- meaning members of the HLCF- have raised money to run these forums for the past several years. This gives us the right to ask questions about that process. I'm not saying we have the right to micgrmange things but we should have the right to ask for an explanation of what the money we raise is used for and if possibly there is a way to do the same thing for less.

I do also believe that the problem started by the manner in which the subject was brought up. I do not believe that Ross intended it to be this way but the manner in which he brought up the subject was easily intrepreted by some as to be either questioning John's intelligence or integrity. I believe he explained his position after being challenged very well.

There were too many personal attack posts back and forth- those should have been edited out or edited to remove the nasty part.

Bottom line- should there be censoring. Based on the agreement we all signed there is no question. Yes there should be and is.

Should this "power" be used only in very narrow situations- here I have to vote a resounding YES.

Did this particular discussion merit the ultimate editing that was used- in my opinion a reaounding NO.

Dennis

Daniel, using a legal disclaimer and "I am aloud to and I did." Is a pretty weak excuse.

Do you get up early and cut up the newspaper each morning so your family reads nothing you find objectionable?

There were valid points on both sides of the spirited debate, I am not taking sides on the argument, Who are you protecting us from? Our selves? What gives you the right to decide what I or anyone else reads?

If you received 5 e-mails and based your decision to censor on that, what about the other 1605 people who apparently didn't have a problem with it?

If you removed or edited every thread that went off topic there would only be a handful of postings left.

Simply locking a thread, asking for the topic to carried on elsewhere or not continued should end this type of issue is most cases (imho)

Can somebody post a link or send me a link to what your all discussing?

Thanks,

Sean

Never mind, I found it.

My biggest problem with the deleted posts that most had nothing to do with name calling. To me the good was thrown out with the bad. Also the costs is an issue as far as how much can be donated to a lighthouse in need. Just for the record, if it cost X number of dollars to keep the website as is, fine with me. If you can do the same quality etc. for less, that's good to.
I made the poll to last only a week, so we can back to the good stuff...Harbour Lights, lighthouse info, saving lighthouses and a kind word or two.