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%]
crgwllmsThu, 1 July 2004, 11:48 pm
New 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%]
Leah MaherFri, 2 July 2004, 12:18 pm
Re: New Poll - Shot On Site
crgwllms wrote:
>
> What do you think of censorship when it comes to totally
> offensive, unnecessary posts?
>
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".
I notice so far most people have pushed the decisions off on Grant. I have to admit I did too, but I don't know if it's a question any one person has the ability to answer. Sometimes you have to all agree to let one person to decide for everyone, rightly or wrongly. Not a responsibility I would want.
Leah M
>
> What do you think of censorship when it comes to totally
> offensive, unnecessary posts?
>
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".
I notice so far most people have pushed the decisions off on Grant. I have to admit I did too, but I don't know if it's a question any one person has the ability to answer. Sometimes you have to all agree to let one person to decide for everyone, rightly or wrongly. Not a responsibility I would want.
Leah M
Grant MalcolmFri, 2 July 2004, 01:47 pm
Re: Shoot for the moon
Hi Leah
Leah M wrote:
> I notice so far most people have pushed the decisions off on
> Grant. I have to admit I did too, but I don't know if it's a
> question any one person has the ability to answer. Sometimes
> you have to all agree to let one person to decide for
> everyone, rightly or wrongly. Not a responsibility I would
> want.
Imagine how things would grind to a halt if we had to wait for someone to review each post, every event before allowing it to be posted! But the responsibility is probably not as onerous as the potential for liability. If someone moderates some posts and not others, are they implicitly endorsing the ones they don't delete? Could the moderator be held at least partly responsible for other people's views that are not deleted? What of all the old posts? Should they be examined and moderated? How would you decide what to delete and what not to delete? Who's qualified to make these decisions.
Or maybe this is all about developing a slightly thicker skin, a higher tolerance level or better personal filters for dealing with the odd bit of nonsense?
Ms/Mr Dum posted a half dozen messages in the space of four minutes. The messages have disappeared from the home page. In the context of the thousands of contributions posted over the last few years, the number of idiot postings is really quite insignificant.
I'll confess I was worried for a while there at the rate that Sasha was churning them out and I did put a tempoary block in place that asked her to please contact me whenever she tried to post, but generally speaking the nuisance posts disappear about as quickly as they arrive - unless provoked. Please don't feed the trolls.
:-)
Some of the nuisance posters have returned to make worthwhile contributions further down the track. It really depends on the treatment they receive.
Which brings me to the teens. This group is really difficult to deal with because it is just that, a large number of people, not a few troublesome indviduals. For the most part these young people arrive here after searching for things like "teen model" or "12 year old audition" and without reading too much else, post their plaintive requests.
I think we all owe a huge debt of gratitude to the people that have patiently and politely responded time and again to these requests. I don't doubt for a minute that for every "please give me a part" posting that gets through there are probably a dozen young people that read the generous responses from our community and pursue some of the more constructive avenues suggested. But with 7,000 visitors per week generating 400,000 hits per week we're still getting daily teen requests coming through.
I've got a couple of suggestions that build on others made over the last few days and weeks.
Firstly, let's construct an FAQ for these visitors. What sorts of information is likely to be useful to be most these people?
Secondly, lets look at ways of directing these young people to the FAQ. We need quick responses to every teen request that appears on the site either reproducing or linking to the FAQ. For every teen request an FAQ post in response. This way there's a much better chance that the teens will read the FAQ.
Finally, once we get this FAQ up, we need to each ensure there is a link to it on our own theatre websites with a link like "Teen Actor and Model FAQ". If we can get a few links like this up pointing to FAQ this will push the page to the top of the Google search results for most of these words, directing people to the FAQ before the message board pages.
So, who's game to put up then first draft of the FAQ?
Cheers
Grant
Thou pox-marked onion-eyed measle!
[%sig%]
Leah M wrote:
> I notice so far most people have pushed the decisions off on
> Grant. I have to admit I did too, but I don't know if it's a
> question any one person has the ability to answer. Sometimes
> you have to all agree to let one person to decide for
> everyone, rightly or wrongly. Not a responsibility I would
> want.
Imagine how things would grind to a halt if we had to wait for someone to review each post, every event before allowing it to be posted! But the responsibility is probably not as onerous as the potential for liability. If someone moderates some posts and not others, are they implicitly endorsing the ones they don't delete? Could the moderator be held at least partly responsible for other people's views that are not deleted? What of all the old posts? Should they be examined and moderated? How would you decide what to delete and what not to delete? Who's qualified to make these decisions.
Or maybe this is all about developing a slightly thicker skin, a higher tolerance level or better personal filters for dealing with the odd bit of nonsense?
Ms/Mr Dum posted a half dozen messages in the space of four minutes. The messages have disappeared from the home page. In the context of the thousands of contributions posted over the last few years, the number of idiot postings is really quite insignificant.
I'll confess I was worried for a while there at the rate that Sasha was churning them out and I did put a tempoary block in place that asked her to please contact me whenever she tried to post, but generally speaking the nuisance posts disappear about as quickly as they arrive - unless provoked. Please don't feed the trolls.
:-)
Some of the nuisance posters have returned to make worthwhile contributions further down the track. It really depends on the treatment they receive.
Which brings me to the teens. This group is really difficult to deal with because it is just that, a large number of people, not a few troublesome indviduals. For the most part these young people arrive here after searching for things like "teen model" or "12 year old audition" and without reading too much else, post their plaintive requests.
I think we all owe a huge debt of gratitude to the people that have patiently and politely responded time and again to these requests. I don't doubt for a minute that for every "please give me a part" posting that gets through there are probably a dozen young people that read the generous responses from our community and pursue some of the more constructive avenues suggested. But with 7,000 visitors per week generating 400,000 hits per week we're still getting daily teen requests coming through.
I've got a couple of suggestions that build on others made over the last few days and weeks.
Firstly, let's construct an FAQ for these visitors. What sorts of information is likely to be useful to be most these people?
Secondly, lets look at ways of directing these young people to the FAQ. We need quick responses to every teen request that appears on the site either reproducing or linking to the FAQ. For every teen request an FAQ post in response. This way there's a much better chance that the teens will read the FAQ.
Finally, once we get this FAQ up, we need to each ensure there is a link to it on our own theatre websites with a link like "Teen Actor and Model FAQ". If we can get a few links like this up pointing to FAQ this will push the page to the top of the Google search results for most of these words, directing people to the FAQ before the message board pages.
So, who's game to put up then first draft of the FAQ?
Cheers
Grant
Thou pox-marked onion-eyed measle!
[%sig%]
Leah MaherFri, 2 July 2004, 02:09 pm
Re: Shoot for the moon
Re; the teen actor FAQ. Brilliant idea.
Grant maybe is you posted a couple of Qs people could post some A's and we could get going from there?
LLM
Grant maybe is you posted a couple of Qs people could post some A's and we could get going from there?
LLM
crgwllmsFri, 2 July 2004, 05:32 pm
Re: Shot On Site
Leah 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
Walter PlingeFri, 2 July 2004, 06:05 pm
Re: New Poll - Sot On Shite
Censorship implies one uniform standard or ideology, and so the broader the arena in which it is applied, the more absurd and, ultimately, the more offensive it becomes to those within the relevant community who do not share the prescribed standard or ideologies.
We could argue that we as a community on this bulletin board share a larger percentage of standards and ideologies than not, and as such possess the right to prescribe standards to this board. I, for one, respectfully disagree.
I am a firm believer in the Voltairean principles of defending the right of someone to say something, even if I vehemently disagree with what they're saying. Indeed, it is my firmly held opinion that one's commitment to free speech can only be measured by a willingness to support speech we detest.
Censorship is a form of laziness. It states, in essence: "I can't be arsed pointing out the shortcomings and inadequacies of your stance, so I'll just shut you up instead." AKA, a cop-out.
Mister/Ms Dum Ass is as their nom-de-net suggests. Ignore them and they will go away, just like the last troll did.
If illegalities are occuring, report the offenders to the relevant authorities and let the chips fall where they may. I personally choose to delete the offending posts and move on to more important things, like picking fights with Leah.
:o)~
dm.
We could argue that we as a community on this bulletin board share a larger percentage of standards and ideologies than not, and as such possess the right to prescribe standards to this board. I, for one, respectfully disagree.
I am a firm believer in the Voltairean principles of defending the right of someone to say something, even if I vehemently disagree with what they're saying. Indeed, it is my firmly held opinion that one's commitment to free speech can only be measured by a willingness to support speech we detest.
Censorship is a form of laziness. It states, in essence: "I can't be arsed pointing out the shortcomings and inadequacies of your stance, so I'll just shut you up instead." AKA, a cop-out.
Mister/Ms Dum Ass is as their nom-de-net suggests. Ignore them and they will go away, just like the last troll did.
If illegalities are occuring, report the offenders to the relevant authorities and let the chips fall where they may. I personally choose to delete the offending posts and move on to more important things, like picking fights with Leah.
:o)~
dm.
Leah MaherFri, 2 July 2004, 06:05 pm
Re: Shot On Site
Craig wrote;
>
> 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 think those posts are offensive too, but I'm sure there aren't a lack of people on this board thinking "it's just a kid trying to get a rise out of us, just ignore it, it's not worth it". This case may be (as far as you and I are concerned) pretty black and white, not all the cases are going to be like that.
Start taking down posts down and you start a flood of people wanting to take down posts, a bad position for Grant (and one he has been in before) and a worse position for the free flow of ideas on this board.
>........... but if it's a post that the majority agree upon
> and complain about, should someone then be permitted to chuck
> it out?
Ah yes, the fabled majority. How the heck do we tell what the majority think? The majority of people on this board don't post, or not regularly. They read, they get the info they need, and they leave. This board is mostly posted on by a small vocal group (ie you and me). We have no way of knowing what the majority think.
Your suggestions as to rating posts etc are (for the most part) great, and in a perfect world where Grant gets the time, resources and wage to give us this amazing service, those things might be able to be put in place, but it's just not tennable.
And I have to say I completely disagree with having to have your opinions veted and deemed worthy before they are let onto this site (again, who judges what is worthy). And if we insisted people leave valid email addresses, we'd scare off some of our best reviewers, and some of our contravesial posters who spark some of our best debates.
I agree a way to deal with the teens is Grants FAQ idea. I also like the idea that anythng illegal should be taken down, but then we put Grant in a position that he should monitor all imput on this board for legality (and I know who would end up checking that, which is cool, but there are an awful lots of posts to look at) and making him repsonsible in some way for the content on this board which should never be the case.
It's difficult, but this board has managed a free flow of ideas in the past, we are having a couple of problems now that can, hopefully, be fixed with Grants suggestion that we do not feed the trolls.
Any counterpoints welcome.
LLM
>
> 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 think those posts are offensive too, but I'm sure there aren't a lack of people on this board thinking "it's just a kid trying to get a rise out of us, just ignore it, it's not worth it". This case may be (as far as you and I are concerned) pretty black and white, not all the cases are going to be like that.
Start taking down posts down and you start a flood of people wanting to take down posts, a bad position for Grant (and one he has been in before) and a worse position for the free flow of ideas on this board.
>........... but if it's a post that the majority agree upon
> and complain about, should someone then be permitted to chuck
> it out?
Ah yes, the fabled majority. How the heck do we tell what the majority think? The majority of people on this board don't post, or not regularly. They read, they get the info they need, and they leave. This board is mostly posted on by a small vocal group (ie you and me). We have no way of knowing what the majority think.
Your suggestions as to rating posts etc are (for the most part) great, and in a perfect world where Grant gets the time, resources and wage to give us this amazing service, those things might be able to be put in place, but it's just not tennable.
And I have to say I completely disagree with having to have your opinions veted and deemed worthy before they are let onto this site (again, who judges what is worthy). And if we insisted people leave valid email addresses, we'd scare off some of our best reviewers, and some of our contravesial posters who spark some of our best debates.
I agree a way to deal with the teens is Grants FAQ idea. I also like the idea that anythng illegal should be taken down, but then we put Grant in a position that he should monitor all imput on this board for legality (and I know who would end up checking that, which is cool, but there are an awful lots of posts to look at) and making him repsonsible in some way for the content on this board which should never be the case.
It's difficult, but this board has managed a free flow of ideas in the past, we are having a couple of problems now that can, hopefully, be fixed with Grants suggestion that we do not feed the trolls.
Any counterpoints welcome.
LLM
crgwllmsFri, 2 July 2004, 08:03 pm
Re: Spot On Target
Leah M wrote:
> Any counterpoints welcome.
Nope. Pretty happy that you've covered everything I can think of.
Cheers,
Craig
> Any counterpoints welcome.
Nope. Pretty happy that you've covered everything I can think of.
Cheers,
Craig
Walter PlingeThu, 8 July 2004, 07:56 pm
Re: New Poll - Sot On Shite
Can't agree more. But the results of the poll so far show people are in favour of censorship. That's scary.
Thou gorbellied onion-eyed flirt-gill!
Thou gorbellied onion-eyed flirt-gill!
crgwllmsSun, 18 July 2004, 03:46 am
Poll Results - Shot On Site
Should action be taken to censor/remove offensive posts here?
There have been 144 participants in 17 days
Any post can be removed at Webmaster`s discretion. 24% 35votes
No. Let freedom of speech reign. 21% 30votes
Continuous offenders ought to be barred from posting. 21% 30votes
Inappropriate posts can be deleted, as well as offensive ones. 15% 22votes
Only extremely offensive sentences should be edited. 11% 16votes
Entire posts should be removed if deemed offensive. 6% 9votes
Quite a high percentage in favour of varying forms of censorship. Almost a quarter believing total power should be allowed to the webmaster to delete posts as seen fit.
Slightly more than a fifth believe no censorship should happen.
Discussion under this thread, however, seems to argue most strongly against any censorship.
The Poll-tergeist
[%sig%]
There have been 144 participants in 17 days
Any post can be removed at Webmaster`s discretion. 24% 35votes
No. Let freedom of speech reign. 21% 30votes
Continuous offenders ought to be barred from posting. 21% 30votes
Inappropriate posts can be deleted, as well as offensive ones. 15% 22votes
Only extremely offensive sentences should be edited. 11% 16votes
Entire posts should be removed if deemed offensive. 6% 9votes
Quite a high percentage in favour of varying forms of censorship. Almost a quarter believing total power should be allowed to the webmaster to delete posts as seen fit.
Slightly more than a fifth believe no censorship should happen.
Discussion under this thread, however, seems to argue most strongly against any censorship.
The Poll-tergeist
[%sig%]
jassepMon, 19 July 2004, 08:29 am
Re: Poll Results - Shot On Site
Hi Craig,
As I've discovered in my travels, no matter how loud a vocal group is, they are usually in a minority... and you can't second guess what the 'marketplace' wants. And usually, it's a suprise what people *really* want (which is part of what I think has been demonstrated here).
For the record, I voted for 'continuous offenders should be barred'. What is the point of free speech in the mouths of those with limited expression, vocabulary or agendas?
Jason
As I've discovered in my travels, no matter how loud a vocal group is, they are usually in a minority... and you can't second guess what the 'marketplace' wants. And usually, it's a suprise what people *really* want (which is part of what I think has been demonstrated here).
For the record, I voted for 'continuous offenders should be barred'. What is the point of free speech in the mouths of those with limited expression, vocabulary or agendas?
Jason