Too Much Censorship

none

Never been to this category before but the way these boards go made me seek clarifications here. In vain, probably, but still. Dum spiro spero.

Toots* wrote:

none wrote: »

I was just reading this thread on Multiple Currency Bank Account (Sterling and Euro) – is it possible? and didn't quite get why it was closed and why pharmer was punished?

He just added useful info and his explanation was perfectly valid. I didn't notice anything rude or bold in his words but he was found "arguing with mod". Not sure what it means here and what are the consequences but such things do remind of tough times of censorship.

I do feel that censorship is the main reason why Web discussions are so rare and timid. The Digiweb hosting agreement is to blame.

But what agreement is in force here? And what to do not to infringe it? When I asked another innocent question about bank accounts a while ago, it was closed and my questions why didn't help. Now this strange issue with pharmer.

Ireland was once famed for its democracy and freedom but something has definitely changed and I guess that's one of the reasons why people emigrate now.

Hi none,

The reason the thread was originally locked is because it was over 5 months old. Per the quoted section in the charter, dragging up old threads is not allowed. It was the poster's response that earned him the infraction, he would have received the same had he responded to any other poster in that manner.

It is also posted in the charter that if you have a problem or query with a moderator's action, then you should either PM that mod, or one of their co-mods. If you don't get any satisfaction from them, then the next step is the Help Desk, not dragging the thread off topic. This is a sitewide rule, and is not unique to Banking Insurance & Pensions.

It is not appropriate to start threads like the above in the Banking Insurance & Pensions forum, a PM to either myself or one of my co-mods would have been a better first step. Or if you wish, you could repost your thread in the Help Desk if you are not happy with my response.

Regards,
Toots*

I'll briefly address the points raised in Toots*'s reply.

I can agree with reviving dead threads being a bad idea but this doesn't look like the case here. There was a question and the person came to suggest an answer. The thread was neither answered or closed so I see absolutely no problem with that. Moreover, being just a few month old is by no way the same as dead or even old. I think both the question and the answer could well be still relevant.

As a rule of thumb, nobody is keen to take it tête-à-tête with Mods. And I can understand why. The question I mentioned in my message was no problem to anybody, just a request for opinion on different banks. Still, it was closed. When I asked a Mod why, I got no meaningful explanation. That's why talking to Mods tête-à-tête is useless, they just bring you down without any apparent reason. If you want the reasons or some other information, bring it to the general public. I'd like to, but the Mods come in the way. And there was no offtopic in any thread I mentioned, not sure why that comment.

That's it. Just thought I'll let you know that too much censorship is bad, whatever the environment. My post was taken down in about 10 mins, not sure if this will last longer. In any case, I hope I don't break any rules myself (except for questioning the Mods' behaviour).

p.s. No idea who's pharmer and not interested to know, I just don't like censorship. Choose freedom (c) Toshiba

sceptre

Hey none

To begin with, points noted.

Moving on, most forums on boards.ie would consider reviving a thread where the most recent reply was five months previous to be reviving a dead thread (or a zombie thread as people often call it). Regardless of whether the contribution is "try citibank" or something more substantial.

The rule about not arguing with moderators on-thread is there for a simple reason - to stop threads going off-topic into a side-argument with the moderator when there are other outlets to do so that don't saddle the thread with running off-topic. Common practice has also grown that such a discussion lies within the remit of a PM exchange with the moderator or a Help Desk thread. As you've chosen to do here.

What sometime happens, unfortunately, is that some users carry on regardless without reading the often-short charters in each forum and haven't read the terms and conditions (also short) they agreed to on signup or the sitewide FAQ (admittedly longer but conveniently linked to form every page in the blue bar you'll see above this thread). Unfortunately, we can't make people read these things, even if it makes sense that they do so. It's easier for boards.ie members to discuss the rules if they're aware of the rules. Happily, quite a few are. The member in question picked up no "penalty" for resurrecting the dead thread. The penalty was applied for arguing on-thread, including telling the moderator to "get off [his/her] horse". The member in question is perfectly free to raise an objection to that, either with the moderator or here.

Shorter version: Obviously what you'd consider a dead thread is different form current practice. That's unfortunate, though moderators often try to take it on a case by case basis. Generally, 5 months without replies like in this example... dead. There are other methods of discussing a moderator decision aside from arguing on-thread with them.

As for censorship... well, I realise you view it as such but I tend to view it as lack of anarchy given that channels are provided for all objections so we'll likely just have to differ there.

You'll likely have comments. Feel free to make them.

none

OK, thanks for an in-depth analysis of different scenarios. I agree that there could be different situations where you have to demonstrate your power but I'm more interested in that particular case which, in my opinion, didn't warrant it.

The response was relevant and succinct. No no offtopic, no flaming. Why lock it? And when the poster got apparently upset by such a treatment, punish him? I believe he was upset rightfully because all he did was giving help and being punished for this is quite unjust.

And what's so insulting about "get off your horse"? All I could find John Wayne's misquote but that's hardly a reason for a ban?

And yes, I respect control not any less than democracy. But only when it's paired with common sense/logic, not when it's dictated by melancholy/vengeance.

none

Well, I see it's getting serious. You put me on a manual approval or something as my posts don't appear immediately. Cool, I'm flattered. Why not ban outright then? But before I go, I just want to know one thing - what for?

Gordon

Every subsequent post of a thread is premoderated on Helpdesk.

sceptre

As Gordon mentioned, every post in a Help Desk thread subsequent to the first needs to be approved. That's actually mentioned in the "***READ THIS BEFORE STARTING A NEW THREAD***" thread at the top of this forum but as I mentioned, we can't actually make people read these things. Short of adding some snazzy stars we can't make them any more obvious either. It's a technical limitation of vbulletin to stop everyone sticking their noses in where we may sometimes need input from a forum moderator (but may not) and all posts by a complainant are always approved (also mentioned in the thread I've linked to)

You've got two questions in there that I can see and hence address. Why lock it? Because the thread is a zombie thread. Typically zombie thread resurrected tend to go nowhere, especially in a situation like that where the original respondent is likely to have long moved on and any subsequent person with a query can easily start a new thread, typically without including earlier information that may well be out of date. It's a mod call to make and they make it. I realise you don't like that method but I don't believe the censorship stone applies to your example thread in particular. Or to many other threads that are locked for various reasons, including the zombie ones. But I'm moving beyond your query and I don't mean to do that. Let's put it this way, if I was going to query that one in particular, I probably wouldn't throw the censorship stone early.

The second part question, asking about the penalty - there are two formal options available to moderators - issuing a card or a ban. The mod chose to issue a card. You mention a ban but there wasn't one applied. I don't have a problem with supporting a card being issued by a moderator when the rules and FAQ are clear that arguing with a moderator decision on-thread will result in a penalty. I realise you don't appear to like that but we choose that to be apt where an obvious rule that we consider entirely reasonable and for the good of the community gets broken. There's still plenty of fluffiness and happiness on boards. What's so insulting about "get off your horse"? Nothing. I didn't say it was insulting, just unnecessarily argumentative and arguing with a moderator decision on-thread isn't allowed or advisable. There are other places and methods to do that. You're using one of them right now.

The rationale for the above couldn't be further from melancholy or vengeance to be honest. It comes from common sense and logic as it happens. But given that we're unlikely to agree on that one, I'm afraid never the twain shall meet and we'll have to differ, hopefully amicably.

none

Sorry, I didn't know about pre-approval in this forum. As I said, this is first time I'm here. I appreciate your detailed explanation but, as you rightly noticed, there are just two questions here: 1) why lock that particular thread and 2) why punish that particular user.

I don't believe the first one has any reasons except for being overly pedantic. Or just having something wrong on the personal level. This type of questions is quite popular and the contribution, despite being short, might have hepled some people. I have no problem with rules but the common sense here is crying out against locking the thread in that particular time, in that particular situation. Do you honestly believe (taking off your Mod's uniform) that post deserved a lock?

Second part, obviously, stems from the first. If I was that poster, I would also get offended by such drastic actions. I don't think I would say anything about horses as I don't really remember any of John Wayne's movies but I would definitely show that I think such a behaviour is bad, or even detrimental to the boards wellbeing in general. So yes, I may agree that OP's reaction was theoretically deserving some kind of warning but his reaction was sincere and caused by Mod's misstep in the first place.

So I'm not going to put emphasis on the second issue but I'd really love you to admit that the first step (lock) was 100% wrong according to common sense (OK leaving your Mod's uniform on).

none

So where's my yesterday's post, Guys? Your approval seems to take a bit too long...

sceptre

For some reason your posts didn't jump the thread to the front page, not sure why but the techies can look at it (or I plain missed it).

Threads rarely "deserve" a lock, unless people are being abusive. Most times threads are locked, it's because a mod has chosen to use their experience and judgement to make that call. This is what happened here. Was the lock 100% wrong as you ask? No. You don't agree with it: that's your prerogative as a site member.