New Poll - Shot On Site
Thu, 1 July 2004, 11:48 pmcrgwllms11 posts in thread
New Poll - Shot On Site
Thu, 1 July 2004, 11:48 pmNew Poll topic:
A recently contentious issue, and line of discussion, has prompted me to enter this new poll.
What do you think of censorship when it comes to totally offensive, unnecessary posts?
The Poll-tergeist.
[%sig%]
A recently contentious issue, and line of discussion, has prompted me to enter this new poll.
What do you think of censorship when it comes to totally offensive, unnecessary posts?
The Poll-tergeist.
[%sig%]
Re: Shot On Site
Fri, 2 July 2004, 05:32 pmLeah M wrote:
>
> As ever, I ask; who decides? Who's standards do we apply? One
> persons "totally offensive" is another persons "it wasn't
> that bad" or "I was only mucking around". One persons
> "unnecessary" is another persons "you just don't agree with
> me" or "I think I should be able to air my views".
Hi Leah,
I read your post as part of the 'digest' sent to my email. The next three messages posted immediately afterward (same author) all were short phrases with content threatening to kill, threatening to stalk, suggesting copulating with someone's mother, and making a disparaging simile referring to genitalia.
I would imagine virtually everyone's standards (including the author's..!) would categorise these as highly offensive; and in the context of relevance to theatre or any prior discussion, they seem equally unnecessary.
> I don't know if it's a question any one person has the ability to answer
Me neither, but if it's a post that the majority agree upon and complain about, should someone then be permitted to chuck it out?
I wouldn't expect someone to vet everything before it was posted. But I think in some cases it's worth clearing away the trash, mainly to discourage further offenders...they won't be so bothered posting crap if they realise it will be promptly removed. Having said that, I concur with what Grant has added to this thread...censorship implies that whoever's responsible has agreed by default that whatever remains is deemed suitable. This might not always be the case and could cause problems in itself.
If I understood how websites work and had the time and resources to design as I saw fit, I'd suggest log-ins directly related to valid email addresses. I'd have a rating system where each time a message is read, you rank it from 0-10 before being allowed to leave to the next post. Posts with a high-ranking average would be flagged as useful posts to browse for information. Posts that received near-zero averages would be regularly considered for deletion.
Probably a good thing I don't know how websites work.
Cheers,
Craig
>
> As ever, I ask; who decides? Who's standards do we apply? One
> persons "totally offensive" is another persons "it wasn't
> that bad" or "I was only mucking around". One persons
> "unnecessary" is another persons "you just don't agree with
> me" or "I think I should be able to air my views".
Hi Leah,
I read your post as part of the 'digest' sent to my email. The next three messages posted immediately afterward (same author) all were short phrases with content threatening to kill, threatening to stalk, suggesting copulating with someone's mother, and making a disparaging simile referring to genitalia.
I would imagine virtually everyone's standards (including the author's..!) would categorise these as highly offensive; and in the context of relevance to theatre or any prior discussion, they seem equally unnecessary.
> I don't know if it's a question any one person has the ability to answer
Me neither, but if it's a post that the majority agree upon and complain about, should someone then be permitted to chuck it out?
I wouldn't expect someone to vet everything before it was posted. But I think in some cases it's worth clearing away the trash, mainly to discourage further offenders...they won't be so bothered posting crap if they realise it will be promptly removed. Having said that, I concur with what Grant has added to this thread...censorship implies that whoever's responsible has agreed by default that whatever remains is deemed suitable. This might not always be the case and could cause problems in itself.
If I understood how websites work and had the time and resources to design as I saw fit, I'd suggest log-ins directly related to valid email addresses. I'd have a rating system where each time a message is read, you rank it from 0-10 before being allowed to leave to the next post. Posts with a high-ranking average would be flagged as useful posts to browse for information. Posts that received near-zero averages would be regularly considered for deletion.
Probably a good thing I don't know how websites work.
Cheers,
Craig