Them good ol' moderation blues...
Tue, 5 Apr 2011, 02:07 pmBass Guy26 posts in thread
Them good ol' moderation blues...
Tue, 5 Apr 2011, 02:07 pmThis is an old chestnut of mine, but... I've noticed in the reviews section a couple of instances where unfawning comments have been moderated down- simply because they didn't follow the rapturous praise of other postings on the same thread.
This happened with "Zastrozzi" a week or two ago, and has just happened on Gordon's "Company" review thread today.
Neither of these posts could be construed as trolling, slanderous or even mean-spritied; it's just they had the nerve NOT to say "This is the best (fill in the blank) I've ever seen...". Some of the critisisms offered were pointed, certainly- but well reasoned, and certainly nothing that amounted to hate-mail.
In the case of the Zastrozzi one, it DISAPPEARED COMPLETELY from the site. I went back to read it again and it had simply vanished, and I've been unable to locate it again. And considering one of the chief admin folk here was in that particular show, one is tempted to smell a rat or two....
And this is one of the problems I have with moderation (as I've bleated about from the get-go); sure you can "moderate things up", but should you have to? If someone is silly enough to post something hateful (and I'm as guilty of that as anyone on this site) leave it up and let people respond to it. Don't hide it because it disagrees with the general tenor of the conversation.
I like reasoned debate- if I want irrational stupidity, I'll read (or post on) facebook. I would have thought this site could withstand more open discussion.
What are everyone else's thoughts? Assuming this hasn't been moderated out of public view....
Eliot McCann
but we don't
Fri, 29 Apr 2011, 10:59 pmhave the right to anonymity.
You cannot enter many places, such as a bank or a shop with a balaclava on covering your identity.
You are also not allowed to go onto a website and post defamatory or otherwise unpleasant material on a website under the protection of anonymity. A person is within their legal rights to demand that person be tracked down, and even possibly charged, or at least sued by the aggrieved party.
There is no legal protection of your identity online if you engage in behaviour that would not be appropriate/illegal in any other public forum.
you can do what you like in the privacy of your home with the consent of other adults, but this forum is neither anyone's home, nor private. It is a public forum.
However, my greatest concern is this- If your 'friends' and colleagues cannot take constructive, honest and well considered criticism, then they are neither friends nor built to hack this industry.
If your criticism is none of these things, and therefore needs protection of anonymity, then I think the premise of the argument here is that you simply should not be saying it.
i.e., if you couldn't or wouldn't say it to their face, you should possibly reconsider writing it. I have many colleagues who ask for my opinions about shows they are in because they know it is unlikely I am going to bullshit them.
I would also assert again that the people who say trashy stuff under protection of anonymity are low gutter trash and don't deserve the protection of anonymity to hide their pathetic nature. They are the poison in our industry.
As far as previous statements about posters being under 18, well, as recent court-cases have shown, being under-aged does not give you carte blanche to say or do as you please on the net, just as you can't do it on the street corner.
Anyway. I shouldn't be on here. I should pack up my stuff and go home, it is 11pm on a Friday night after all. Lame... :-)
Happy weekend to all.
Nev
It's the simple things stupid...