Censorship/screening

[Scandiman]

Andres, can you clarify exactly what threads/subforums and whose comments are now being censored/screened? I made a post last night in this thread (which is NOT your Call to Action thread) and upon submitting it I got your message about the post is going to be screened before publishing.

[Andres Kello]

Andres, can you clarify exactly what threads/subforums and whose comments are now being censored/screened? I made a post last night in this thread (which is NOT your Call to Action thread) and upon submitting it I got your message about the post is going to be screened before publishing.

First of all, don't call it censorship when it isn't. Censorship, by definition, implies we are purposefully deleting or hiding information to drive an agenda. You're trying to suggest that something sinister is happening at Mobility when that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Individual threads cannot be made to be moderated, so when several members were choosing to ignore the rules of the Call to Action thread, I had to temporarily add moderation to the entire sub-forum the Call to Action thread was in, which happens to be the mTLD / dotMobi sub-forum your post was in

All of this would have been very easily avoided if people simply respected the rules. No one hates moderation more than I do as I have to be the one to individually approve each post, as if I don't have enough on my plate as it is.

Since people insist on either not following the rules or trying to make Mobility out to be something that it isn't (like you are now doing by using the word "censorship" to purposefully call into question our integrity), this is what I'm going to do. I'm going to remove moderation from the mTLD subform (which, to be clear, was the ONLY moderated sub-forum on Mobility for the reason above), but if anyone makes a post in the Call to Action thread that is anything other than to say they are "in", they will be banned because I don't know how to make it any clearer.

And Paul, next time you have an issue with Mobility, don't automatically assume the worst and try to call us out on it like you did here. At least give us the benefit of the doubt, I believe we've more than earned it. Your careful choice of the word "censorship" in the title (and all the connotations that come with it) show a serious lack of tact.

Hope that's clear enough now.

[Scandiman]

First of all, don't call it censorship when it isn't. Censorship, by definition, implies we are purposefully deleting or hiding information to drive an agenda. You're trying to suggest that something sinister is happening at Mobility when that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Individual threads cannot be made to be moderated, so when several members were choosing to ignore the rules of the Call to Action thread, I had to temporarily add moderation to the entire sub-forum the Call to Action thread was in, which happens to the be mTLD / dotMobi sub-forum.

All of this would have been very easily avoided if people simply respected the rules. No one hates moderation more than I do as I have to be the one to individually approve each post, as if I don't have enough on my plate as it is.

Since people insist on either not following the rules or trying to make Mobility out to be something that it isn't (like you are now doing by using the word "censorship" to purposefully call into question our integrity), this is what I'm going to do. I'm going to remove moderation from the mTLD subform (which, to be clear, was the ONLY moderated sub-forum on Mobility for the reason above), but if anyone makes a post in the Call to Action thread that is anything other than to say they are "in", they will be banned.

And Paul, next time you have an issue with Mobility, don't assume the worst and try to call us out on it like you did here. At least give us the benefit of the doubt, I believe we've more than earned it. Your careful choice of the word "censorship" in the title (and all the connotations that come with it) show a serious lack of tact.

Hope that's clear enough now.

Andres, I sought clarification of the new policies here at Mobility since I experienced the screening of my message where I didn't at all expect it. Thanks for clarifying what happened.


As for censorship, per the definition presented on my computer's dictionary:

censorship |ˈsensərˌ sh ip|
noun
the practice of ***icially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts :

Unfortunately when you ***icially screen posts prior to publication you're engaging in the roll of a censor, and suppressing Hanogls post from public view when it was clearly intended for public view is ultimately censorship. IMO regarding Hanogls post the appropriate thing would have been to move it to another public thread since it was intended for public consumption, but I didn't read it and clearly you felt it best to only allow members of the roundtable to read it. That was your decision and I've implied nothing sinister as such, I'm just observing the state of things and I simply hate wasting time making posts to later discover that they are being screened prior to publication. I run into this at blogs all the time where I'm submitting relevant comments and it's extremely frustrating.

So again thanks for clarifying why I ran into the screening message where I didn't at all expect it and I agree it's a good idea to free up that sub-forum.

[Andres Kello]

Andres, I sought clarification of the new policies here at Mobility since I experienced the screening of my message where I didn't at all expect it.

So why didn't you simply point out what happened (possibly even via PM) rather than publicly call into question the integrity of Mobility, and of me personally? Because you wanted to purposefully and publicly call our integrity into question, that's why you chose to use such a loaded word in the title.

As for censorship, per the definition presented on my computer's dictionary:

I'm not going to get into semantics with you, we both know what you meant. Just click on the first link when you define "Censorship" on Google if you still want to pretend like you don't know. So please don't take me for an idiot and try to hide behind your dictionary's definition of the word, I'm not that naive. Any member here, particularly Americans, will tell you the strong negative connotations and baggage the word "censorship" carries (just ask our Chinese members). That's why you specifically chose to use it.

Unfortunately when you ***icially screen posts prior to publication you're engaging in the roll of a censor

Really? So let me get this straight, according to you, when the very clear rules of the only thread/section to be temporarily moderated at Mobility for legal reasons are not being followed, and yet another discussion post is made AFTER I specifically said that any future discussion posts in that thread would be moved inside the Roundtable, and I do exactly as I said I would do, you consider me to be engaging in the roll of a censor? That is laughable and it is hard to take you seriously with such a ridiculous accusation.

Again, this is you trying to not-so-subtly accuse me and this forum of sinister acts to drive an agenda. At no moment did I tell hanogl that he could not post his opinion in any other forum of Mobility. He's the one who chose to violate the rules. To be further clear, I also moved discussion posts IN FAVOR of the Roundtable to the Roundtable, not just the ones against it, so I'm afraid that wouldn't even fit YOUR dictionary definition of the word "censorship" as those discussion posts certainly wouldn't have been what you would consider that I would consider "unacceptable". Again, instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt, you assumed the worst and called me out on it, showing a complete lack of tact.

and suppressing Hanogls post from public view when it was clearly intended for public view is ultimately censorship.

Now we finally get to see what this is really about and what you've obviously been bottling up inside for a few days now waiting to get out. I also find it interesting that you now speak for hanogl. Again, did I tell hanogl to violate the rules and post in that thread? No, it was his choice to purposefully violate the rules, and I had already made the consequences clear before he posted. Did I tell him that he couldn't post his opinion anywhere else or did I delete his subsequent post in that thread where he publicly complained about the Moderation? Nope. That doesn't sound like a censor to me, it sounds more like someone who cares about protecting the people that will be joining his initiative by avoiding any public discussion that they might be dragged into where they might say something they later legally regret. Again, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt on that, that was very respectful of you.

IMO regarding Hanogls post the appropriate thing would have been to move it to another public thread since it was intended for public consumption

No, the appropriate thing would have been for hanogl to follow the rules, but you're obviously choosing to ignore that very simple fact (and here I thought you were just "observing the state of things"...). The appropriate thing for me to do was to do exactly as I said I would do, which is that I would move all discussion posts - in favor or against - to the Roundtable, which is precisely what I did.

but I didn't read it and clearly you felt it best to only allow members of the roundtable to read it.

Clearly felt it best? Are you listening to yourself? Anyone reading between your lines can tell you exactly what you are implying. It wasn't a matter of what "felt best", it was a matter of doing exactly what I said I would do.

That was your decision and I've implied nothing sinister as such, I'm just observing the state of things

You must think everyone here is an idiot. This entire post and thread is an implication of such. A person that was not implying anything sinister would not have chosen to use the word "censorship" in the title and then again in the body. A non-native-English speaker? Maybe. An American? No way in hell. I've lived in the US for 10 years, I know damn well what you were implying by very carefully choosing to use that word. Unlike you, I don't try to hide behind or tiptoe around my accusations, as I'm actually directly accusing you of making false accusations against me and Mobility in public.

I simply hate wasting time making posts to later discover that they are being screened prior to publication.

You hate it so much that you would be willing to put your own reputation and credibility on the line by making false accusations? Hardly seems proportional.

I run into this at blogs all the time where I'm submitting relevant comments and it's extremely frustrating.

Extremely frustrating is having people repeatedly violate simple rules that are there for a reason. Extremely frustrating is after four years of running a forum, having to explain yourself to one of the oldest members who not only did NOT give you the benefit of the doubt, but implied to everyone that you are up to something sinister and then act all innocent and hide behind dictionary definitions like he was just "observing the state of things". That's what's extremely frustrating.

[Scandiman]

So why didn't you simply point out what happened (possibly even via PM) rather than publicly call into question the integrity of Mobility, and of me personally?

My post was indeed simple and I did so here publicly so all members could fully understand what to expect when posting in certain threads. You've clarified the reasons for why my post was being screened, and yea, I do believe doing so qualifies as a form of censorship hence my use of the word. We can agree to disagree on that, that's fine. Clearly you feel I was out to attack you personally but you're wrong. As I said I was frustrated that an innocuous post in a completely unrelated thread was being screened for approval, which again you've clarified why it happened.

[Andres Kello]

My post was indeed simple and I did so here publicly so all members could fully understand what to expect when posting in certain threads. You've clarified the reasons for why my post was being screened, and yea, I do believe doing so qualifies as a form of censorship hence my use of the word. We can agree to disagree on that, that's fine. Clearly you feel I was out to attack you personally but you're wrong. As I said I was frustrated that an innocuous post in a completely unrelated thread was being screened for approval, which again you've clarified why it happened.

I don't agree to disagree because there is nothing to "agree" or "disagree" on. You publicly attacked the integrity of this forum and of me personally and I still don't buy your ridiculous excuse. As you already very well know, I never shrug *** any unwarranted personal attacks (no matter how underhanded they may be) because reputation and credibility is everything in this world, so when mine is unfairly questioned, I will do everything in my power to ensure there is not a shadow of a doubt that the accusation is completely and patently false.

Your weak attempt to plant a seed of doubt in other people about me or Mobility has failed.

Next time you have a problem with either me or Mobility, be very careful what words you choose. And if you get caught making a false accusation, don't deny it, it only makes you look worse.

[Scandiman]

Andres, you're unfortunately so *** base I'm not even sure how to respond at this point other than to once again say thanks for clarifying why it happened and for making the change in forum setting so it's not a problem in the future.

[Andres Kello]

Andres, you're unfortunately so *** base I'm not even sure how to respond at this point other than to once again say thanks for clarifying why it happened and for making the change in forum setting so it's not a problem in the future.

We can let others decide for themselves who exactly is the one "*** base" here.

[Scandiman]

We can let others decide for themselves who exactly is the one "*** base" here.

That's fine Andres, thanks again for addressing the original situation.

[Andres Kello]

That's fine Andres, thanks again for addressing the original situation.

Wolf in sheep's clothing. You're not fooling anyone with your faux politeness. We're done here.

[Scandiman]

Wolf in sheep's clothing. You're not fooling anyone with your faux politeness. We're done here.

A question and a difference of opinion leads to this, it's a sad day.

[Andres Kello]

A question and a difference of opinion leads to this, it's a sad day.

Wrong, a false accusation, mixed with a ridiculous denial, sprinkled with passive-aggressive politeness, and topped *** with not knowing when to stop is what leads to this.

A sad day indeed, as I have lost a lot of respect for you here today.

[newdomainer]

Time out gentlemen!

Let's not get too bogged down in semantics..... To Andres credit, I understand why he felt he had to make his position clear and Paul, you can be as stubborn as I am sometimes (like a mule) but I'm sensing that Andres' guard is up at the moment so why push a moot point when it's clear that there is tension in the air?

(Excuse me for interrupting....)

[Scandiman]

Time out gentlemen!

Let's not get too bogged down in semantics..... To Andres credit, I understand why he felt he had to make his position clear and Paul, you can be as stubborn as I am sometimes (like a mule) but I'm sensing that Andres' guard is up at the moment so why push a moot point when it's clear that there is tension in the air?

(Excuse me for interrupting....)

I agree ND, and once again I'll sign *** by saying thanks for addressing the original situation.

[gogo]

I feel this thread is unfortunate and I really hope that agreement can be found to delete it or make it private in everyone's interest. Any kind of moderation can produce strong reactions all around, this is a feature of any forum sooner or later.

For anyone that does not know, Andres, and hence this forum's, commitment to free speech has been consistent, and admirable, and I am very grateful for that and I believe others are too.