[moved] I disapprove of what you say
bill beaty, Sat Apr 07 2007, 11:25AM" I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. " - EB Hall
The above quote definitely DOESN'T apply to online forums. Certain topics are inappropriate. Those sorts of messages are correctly removed.
However, on "Food for thought - modest suggestion", CM said "Guys, with all due respect, I must say I and at least a few other members are growing more uncomfortable with the increase in monitors modifying member's posts..."
Alex replied "As far as I can tell, you are the only one who thinks what you're doing is a step towards improvement."
I'm totally a newcomer here, but I say the same. I agree with CM about the deletion of sentences within messages. Already I've seen several cases.
Perhaps people here are unaware of it, but in academia, such things simply aren't done. It's unbelievably unprofessional. In fact, in my experience, even on internet in general they're not done, and that says a lot. Yes, deletion of whole messages is common. Or, messages are removed and returned to the sender with request for change. Or subscribers are blocked.
But the editing of individual messages to remove sentences? That alters the message in a way not intended by the author. As a result, the reader has no idea what was removed or why. In my opinion, removing sentences is a clear and very major violation of academic ethics. But then, this is just a hobbyist place. It has no need to abide by the extremely high ethical standards of the scientific community.
What are those standards? Those who don't already know them by heart can search out the private forums populated by professional university scientists (such as the ancient PHYS-L email list,
physicsed.buffalostate.edu/phys-l/ ) and ask for their opinion on the practice of moderators editing messages in any way at all, as opposed to the long-accepted practice of deleting entire messages.I've been online since 1988, and the only time I ever encountered a moderator who edited messages was in an infamous pseudoscience forum. Perhaps people have heard of it: JNL Labs. There, the owner was deleting critical comments coming from the "troublemakers." (What exactly did he have to fear? Well, all critical thinking, for one!) But this was completely predictable, since JNL Labs has no connection with Academia, or with the ethical standards of the professional research community. Where science is concerned, he just doesn't get it. Here's a definition I just made up: Pseudoscientist: someone who pretends to be a scientist, but who dishonestly maintains their beliefs by avoiding self-criticism, and who in addition tries to stop any criticism coming from others.
So besides the selective removal of sentences, I would strongly caution against any removal of messages critical of 4HV, or of locking those discussions. I hope that everyone here is aware of how highly prized by academia is critical thought. While there are plenty of topics in a forum which are rightly banned, public discussion of critical thinking should never be one of these.
Or, perhaps critical thinking is only acceptable here when it is directed at others, and never at 4HV itself? I hope nobody here would ever behave in such ways. So far I haven't seen much evidence of that sort of blatant hypocricy.
Re: [moved] I disapprove of what you say
ragnar, Sat Apr 07 2007, 11:45AM
[edit]: Actually, never mind my rant and rebuttal. I think this Bill guy is incorrigible. And is just CM's puppet. Or vice versa.
Rebel without a clue:
"Rebel Without a Clue's deep seated and infantile hostility to authority motivates his random and seemingly gratuitous attacks on list owners, Admins, Nannies or anyone else who attempts to maintain order and civility in discussion forums. Differing markedly from Rebel Leader, he is unattached to any cause other than petulance for its own sake, and will therefore seldom inspire general insurrection. In his frequent and ineffectual attacks on the established order he will often cite the Bible, or the US Constitution to support incoherent arguments. Rebel Without a Clue NEVER reads forum FAQs , and loudly decries as fascism any enforcement whatsoever of forum rules."
ragnar, Sat Apr 07 2007, 11:45AM
[edit]: Actually, never mind my rant and rebuttal. I think this Bill guy is incorrigible. And is just CM's puppet. Or vice versa.
Rebel without a clue:
"Rebel Without a Clue's deep seated and infantile hostility to authority motivates his random and seemingly gratuitous attacks on list owners, Admins, Nannies or anyone else who attempts to maintain order and civility in discussion forums. Differing markedly from Rebel Leader, he is unattached to any cause other than petulance for its own sake, and will therefore seldom inspire general insurrection. In his frequent and ineffectual attacks on the established order he will often cite the Bible, or the US Constitution to support incoherent arguments. Rebel Without a Clue NEVER reads forum FAQs , and loudly decries as fascism any enforcement whatsoever of forum rules."
Re: [moved] I disapprove of what you say
Alex, Sat Apr 07 2007, 12:24PM
Bill is not CM. He also has some legitimate concerns, so let's keep this civil. I'm also going to move it to the suggestions board, because that is where this really belongs.
I will write a full reply when I get back home from work. I'll explain why we do the things we do, and although our basic policies are not going to change, there may be room for an adjustment in our implementation.
I'll be back this evening. Folks, if you reply, try to stay under control.
Alex, Sat Apr 07 2007, 12:24PM
Bill is not CM. He also has some legitimate concerns, so let's keep this civil. I'm also going to move it to the suggestions board, because that is where this really belongs.
I will write a full reply when I get back home from work. I'll explain why we do the things we do, and although our basic policies are not going to change, there may be room for an adjustment in our implementation.
I'll be back this evening. Folks, if you reply, try to stay under control.
Re: [moved] I disapprove of what you say
uzzors2k, Sat Apr 07 2007, 03:13PM
A lot of people fit into those types, I'll leave determining who is who up to you...
We're getting a lot of flame wars here lately, what has happened? Is it that hard to stay away from "the forbidden topics" and just merge? Everyone else here has. This forum tries to keep a scientific tone, however don't think that means discussing your own hypothesis is allowed. Stick to known science, and if you have discovered anything revolutionary post it along with proof, not just a theory, and it will be accepted. Its as easy as that. Trying to discuss theoretically on a practically oriented hobbyist forum won't get you much respect. At least that is my impression from the last 2 years. There are plenty of science forums which would embrace free thinkers such as yourself, this doesn't appear to be one, so stick to Tesla coils and flybacks here.
uzzors2k, Sat Apr 07 2007, 03:13PM
A lot of people fit into those types, I'll leave determining who is who up to you...
We're getting a lot of flame wars here lately, what has happened? Is it that hard to stay away from "the forbidden topics" and just merge? Everyone else here has. This forum tries to keep a scientific tone, however don't think that means discussing your own hypothesis is allowed. Stick to known science, and if you have discovered anything revolutionary post it along with proof, not just a theory, and it will be accepted. Its as easy as that. Trying to discuss theoretically on a practically oriented hobbyist forum won't get you much respect. At least that is my impression from the last 2 years. There are plenty of science forums which would embrace free thinkers such as yourself, this doesn't appear to be one, so stick to Tesla coils and flybacks here.
Re: [moved] I disapprove of what you say
AndrewM, Sat Apr 07 2007, 05:00PM
(^^ I smiled warmly at the xenophobe description... at least he gets a puppy!)
I would imagine that the mods follow rules to avoid changing the intent of posts when they delete objectionable lines. If not, you're right, its dodgy and should stop.
Deletions in general are somewhat dubious; the only real utility is to keep search spiders from picking up pseudoscience. That doesn't explain why general misconduct like flames and personal attacks would be deleted; I think those should stay.
I'll also point out that I don't see why bill is getting carte blanche in this forum just because he's bill beaty. (Steve: "Yeah, blackplasma, this isn't just any old tin foil hat freak, it's Bill Beatty!") I realize mods can have friends and heros too, but come now, CM didn't get to word-cuddle with Steve before the firestorm began, and bills posts are equally. . . speculative.
AndrewM, Sat Apr 07 2007, 05:00PM
(^^ I smiled warmly at the xenophobe description... at least he gets a puppy!)
I would imagine that the mods follow rules to avoid changing the intent of posts when they delete objectionable lines. If not, you're right, its dodgy and should stop.
Deletions in general are somewhat dubious; the only real utility is to keep search spiders from picking up pseudoscience. That doesn't explain why general misconduct like flames and personal attacks would be deleted; I think those should stay.
I'll also point out that I don't see why bill is getting carte blanche in this forum just because he's bill beaty. (Steve: "Yeah, blackplasma, this isn't just any old tin foil hat freak, it's Bill Beatty!") I realize mods can have friends and heros too, but come now, CM didn't get to word-cuddle with Steve before the firestorm began, and bills posts are equally. . . speculative.
Re: [moved] I disapprove of what you say
Steve Conner, Sat Apr 07 2007, 05:53PM
Changing the intent of posts is a bit of a hot topic. Of course we try not to do that. I personally never remove content from people's posts, although there is no board rule against it, and other moderators do.
Bill and CM: If it feels like you're being censored and picked on, it's because you are! Every other one of your posts treads right down the border of what we regard as acceptable content for 4hv. It's almost like you do it on purpose.
Steve Conner, Sat Apr 07 2007, 05:53PM
Changing the intent of posts is a bit of a hot topic. Of course we try not to do that. I personally never remove content from people's posts, although there is no board rule against it, and other moderators do.
Bill and CM: If it feels like you're being censored and picked on, it's because you are! Every other one of your posts treads right down the border of what we regard as acceptable content for 4hv. It's almost like you do it on purpose.
Re: [moved] I disapprove of what you say
Bjørn, Sat Apr 07 2007, 06:08PM
Bill Beaty comes with some serious allegations without any evidence, which by some moderators will be considered trolling.
Before this thread gets anywhere we needs to see at least one example of a post that followed the rules by letter and intent and still got edited or removed.
Your other option is to request a rule change that no posts will be edited and you need to propose an acceptable replacement, for example three posts off topic results in a ban.
The moderators are following the rules like everyone else so either you have to point out where the rules are being broken by the moderators or propose new rules.
If you do neither I expect you to leave this forum permanently since you are not going to be very happy here with the current rules.
Bjørn, Sat Apr 07 2007, 06:08PM
Bill Beaty comes with some serious allegations without any evidence, which by some moderators will be considered trolling.
Before this thread gets anywhere we needs to see at least one example of a post that followed the rules by letter and intent and still got edited or removed.
Your other option is to request a rule change that no posts will be edited and you need to propose an acceptable replacement, for example three posts off topic results in a ban.
The moderators are following the rules like everyone else so either you have to point out where the rules are being broken by the moderators or propose new rules.
If you do neither I expect you to leave this forum permanently since you are not going to be very happy here with the current rules.
Re: [moved] I disapprove of what you say
Alex, Sat Apr 07 2007, 09:21PM
Most of what I wanted to say has already been said, so I will just try to fill in the gaps.
On the subject of censorship: Yes, we censor certain things. The quality of the content on this forum is dependant on that. In practice, we try to save the good part of a post if possible. Inappropriate content is removed, and a [mod edit] tag is added to clarify what was done to the post. The moderator who has made the edit then sends a PM to the offending user, and notifies the other moderators of the previous actions.
If the intent of your post was to say something that broke the rules, then yes, the intent of your post will have changed. You can avoid this by following the rules.
On the subject of threads and messages critical of 4hv: Anyone is free to criticize the site in a proper and constructive manner. That is, a good post in the suggestion box, not a thread in chatting, or a post in someone else's thread. Neither sensationalist shit-slinging in the chatting board nor off topic jabs at 4hv will be tolerated. If you want your criticism to be taken seriously, then take it to the appropriate forum.
Alex, Sat Apr 07 2007, 09:21PM
Most of what I wanted to say has already been said, so I will just try to fill in the gaps.
On the subject of censorship: Yes, we censor certain things. The quality of the content on this forum is dependant on that. In practice, we try to save the good part of a post if possible. Inappropriate content is removed, and a [mod edit] tag is added to clarify what was done to the post. The moderator who has made the edit then sends a PM to the offending user, and notifies the other moderators of the previous actions.
If the intent of your post was to say something that broke the rules, then yes, the intent of your post will have changed. You can avoid this by following the rules.
On the subject of threads and messages critical of 4hv: Anyone is free to criticize the site in a proper and constructive manner. That is, a good post in the suggestion box, not a thread in chatting, or a post in someone else's thread. Neither sensationalist shit-slinging in the chatting board nor off topic jabs at 4hv will be tolerated. If you want your criticism to be taken seriously, then take it to the appropriate forum.
Re: [moved] I disapprove of what you say
Chris Russell, Sun Apr 08 2007, 10:04PM
Censorship does happen here, it's true. Maybe I can explain the reasoning behind it, and people can either walk away with a better understanding, or suggest a realistic alternative.
When we encounter a post that is in blatant violation of the rules, we have three basic choices. Do nothing, delete it, or edit it.
Doing nothing is a pretty poor choice. If it's an off-topic post, it's only a matter of time before someone replies to it, and suddenly a thread entitled "MMC Design" is talking about the relative merits of neoclassical art. If it's a personal attack or a trolling post, again, someone will eventually take the bait, and flames ensue. Doing nothing at all eventually leads to a very chaotic, tangled, mess. Threads are littered with nonsense, and either a lot of people get warned and banned, or the rules stop getting enforced.
Deleting it is an option we try to reserve for posts that can't be saved, i.e. there is no useful content in them. We try not to delete posts that are useful, as it's sort of like killing the patient to cure the disease. Deleting a post also often results in an angry retort from the person whose post was deleted. Basically, this is a hard-kill, and we don't employ it lightly, because it is a complete deletion, and often causes a lot more hurt feelings than an edit.
The last choice is to edit the post. Sometimes, people throw in a paragraph that's really off-topic, or make a useful post along with a rule violation, like a personal attack. If a bad post can be made into a good one, it's hard to not see that as a win. It should also be noted that edited posts are marked with an edit tag, such as [mod edit] so that people know they're not seeing the entire post as it was meant to be seen by its author. The author of the post is also notified of the change.
Hopefully that clarifies things somewhat. This is our system, as it has evolved over the six years we've been in operation. It's developed from practical experience, and as many things that have evolved, it is not perfect, but it functions well. I am willing to entertain suggestions for improving our approach, but to simply stop removing or editing posts entirely is clearly not an acceptable option.
As to the removal of threads and posts that are critical to 4hv, we don't, unless they're otherwise in violation of the rules, which unfortunately they often are. We won't tolerate an off-topic discussion in the middle of the thread. Reasons why 4hv sucks has nothing to do with your Tesla coil. We won't tolerate a thread that's not in its proper board. "4hv is Fascist" has nothing to do with high voltage. "Suggestions to Improve 4hv" doesn't belong on the chatting board. There's a designated place for such threads (see rule II:H, you can't use the chatting board for Tesla coils either). "4hv is lame" could go in the chatting board, but it will probably end up locked when it degenerates into a flamewar. The best place to air your gripes is in the suggestion box, as that lets me know that you're making a serious bid to change something, and not just stirring the pot. You could also contact myself or another moderator directly.
Chris Russell, Sun Apr 08 2007, 10:04PM
Censorship does happen here, it's true. Maybe I can explain the reasoning behind it, and people can either walk away with a better understanding, or suggest a realistic alternative.
When we encounter a post that is in blatant violation of the rules, we have three basic choices. Do nothing, delete it, or edit it.
Doing nothing is a pretty poor choice. If it's an off-topic post, it's only a matter of time before someone replies to it, and suddenly a thread entitled "MMC Design" is talking about the relative merits of neoclassical art. If it's a personal attack or a trolling post, again, someone will eventually take the bait, and flames ensue. Doing nothing at all eventually leads to a very chaotic, tangled, mess. Threads are littered with nonsense, and either a lot of people get warned and banned, or the rules stop getting enforced.
Deleting it is an option we try to reserve for posts that can't be saved, i.e. there is no useful content in them. We try not to delete posts that are useful, as it's sort of like killing the patient to cure the disease. Deleting a post also often results in an angry retort from the person whose post was deleted. Basically, this is a hard-kill, and we don't employ it lightly, because it is a complete deletion, and often causes a lot more hurt feelings than an edit.
The last choice is to edit the post. Sometimes, people throw in a paragraph that's really off-topic, or make a useful post along with a rule violation, like a personal attack. If a bad post can be made into a good one, it's hard to not see that as a win. It should also be noted that edited posts are marked with an edit tag, such as [mod edit] so that people know they're not seeing the entire post as it was meant to be seen by its author. The author of the post is also notified of the change.
Hopefully that clarifies things somewhat. This is our system, as it has evolved over the six years we've been in operation. It's developed from practical experience, and as many things that have evolved, it is not perfect, but it functions well. I am willing to entertain suggestions for improving our approach, but to simply stop removing or editing posts entirely is clearly not an acceptable option.
As to the removal of threads and posts that are critical to 4hv, we don't, unless they're otherwise in violation of the rules, which unfortunately they often are. We won't tolerate an off-topic discussion in the middle of the thread. Reasons why 4hv sucks has nothing to do with your Tesla coil. We won't tolerate a thread that's not in its proper board. "4hv is Fascist" has nothing to do with high voltage. "Suggestions to Improve 4hv" doesn't belong on the chatting board. There's a designated place for such threads (see rule II:H, you can't use the chatting board for Tesla coils either). "4hv is lame" could go in the chatting board, but it will probably end up locked when it degenerates into a flamewar. The best place to air your gripes is in the suggestion box, as that lets me know that you're making a serious bid to change something, and not just stirring the pot. You could also contact myself or another moderator directly.
Print this page