Daniel Soltys 1077528 Posted March 3, 2011 at 11:35 PM Posted March 3, 2011 at 11:35 PM [Removed - inappropriate language - GL 967365] Daniel Soltys AWW404 CEO - Air Wales Virtual Airlines http://www.airwales-virtual.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Thomson Posted March 4, 2011 at 12:48 AM Posted March 4, 2011 at 12:48 AM [Removed - GL 967365] Don't you just hate that? No information about what the problem was. Was it bad grammar? Bad spelling? Bad language? Bad attitude? Bad alignment with the personal preferences of whoever the anonymous GL 9673675 is? Just give us a hint. I know the CoC, and you always [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that we ALL know it. Just tell me why this post, whatever it was, crossed the line, then I'll be a happy bunny. But if you are just excising a post because YOU don't like it, what future does VATSIM have? That is one immediately obvious conclusion coming from your censorship. This is a serious question and I'd really like a serious answer. Of course, you could just remove this whole post. Then I'll know the answer. You, GL 9673675, really have to be more open. I'm absolutely certain that you are acting in the best interests of the community. But you also have to prove that you are doing that, at every step. Power brings responsibility (and I wish that our elected politicians believed that) so It's part of your territory. Rise above the humdrum of real politics and give us a reason for censoring this post (and I reaally don't care what the post said - it's simply , importantly, a principle here). Alistair Thomson === Definition: a gentleman is a flying instructor in a Piper Cherokee who can change tanks without getting his face slapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastien Bartosz Posted March 4, 2011 at 12:52 AM Posted March 4, 2011 at 12:52 AM Alistair, it's the initials of the person and their VATSIM ID. New York ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted March 4, 2011 at 02:49 AM Posted March 4, 2011 at 02:49 AM Look at the list of moderators for this forum, and you'll see who it is: Moderators: Thomas George 827476, Kyprianos Biris 810309, Gunnar Lindahl 967365 And I agree it would be nice if the moderators always gave a little snippet of info as to why they edited a post. Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Ramsey 810181 Posted March 4, 2011 at 02:51 AM Posted March 4, 2011 at 02:51 AM Many times the mod will contact the person who's post was removed to tell them why. That is my practice. Why it was removed is often irrelevant to those who come along later. Gunnar could have just deleted the post and you guys would have not even known a post was made and then removed. Kyle Ramsey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted March 4, 2011 at 02:57 AM Posted March 4, 2011 at 02:57 AM Very true, it's often irrelevant, but not always. Leaving the edited post with no clue as to the reason leaves it open to questioning, which doesn't help the reputation of the moderators. That's why when I was a moderator I would either remove the post completely (and privately contact the poster) or leave a concise explanation for the edit, so people wouldn't [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume it was a power trip ... human nature. Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Thomson Posted March 4, 2011 at 03:58 AM Posted March 4, 2011 at 03:58 AM …leave a concise explanation for the edit, so people wouldn't [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume it was a power trip…OK, from what I know about Gunnar, this is not a power trip! But I agree with Ross. And of course I don't know, and don't want to know, what is going on behind the scenes in this case. But we are not looking behind the scenes in this forum, if posts are readable. And I truly understand it when some posts are censored. I won't agree that they should be censored (and I never will), but I do understand that VASTSIM misguidedly feels that that is necessary. It's their ball. But leaving a post dangling there, saying "Here is a comment from a member, but you are not getting a chance to see what that comment was" is just basically asking for this kind of trouble from uninformed members like me and everyone else who reads this thread. You either have a democracy, or you don't. I don't advocate a democracy on VATSIM. But I do suggest open-ness. Say why you do something. I and others won't necessarily agree, but at least I and others will have an understanding of the basis for the decision. Otherwise, actually, it's a cover-up! And since I don't think we are playing that game at all, I think that a bit more care and communication regarding post edits is all that is required. Alistair Thomson === Definition: a gentleman is a flying instructor in a Piper Cherokee who can change tanks without getting his face slapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Board of Governors Gunnar Lindahl Posted March 4, 2011 at 12:37 PM Board of Governors Posted March 4, 2011 at 12:37 PM Hi folks, But if you are just excising a post because YOU don't like it, what future does VATSIM have? That is one immediately obvious conclusion coming from your censorship. This is a serious question and I'd really like a serious answer. Of course, you could just remove this whole post. Then I'll know the answer. I'm not censoring anything, and I am not allowed to. I removed the post because it contained inappropriate language and hence contravened CoC clause A(11). I PM'd the poster after I carried out the moderation explaining this. I was not aware that I was required to leave the reason for the moderation in my edit too, but seeing as this has caused so much upset, I will do with any future moderation and have edited this one to reflect this. Thanks, now back on topic. GUNNAR LINDAHL [email protected] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted March 4, 2011 at 05:18 PM Posted March 4, 2011 at 05:18 PM I'm not censoring anything, and I am not allowed to. Strictly speaking, you are censoring, and you are allowed to. It just happens to be (I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume) perfectly reasonable censorship, well within your duties as a moderator. The word "censorship" has a lot of stigma attached to it, but there certainly are reasonable and justifiable forms of censorship, especially in a privately owned and operated forum like this one. I was not aware that I was required to leave the reason for the moderation in my edit too As Kyle's post suggests, you certainly aren't required to leave the reason. Personally I think it would be a good idea, if only to keep people from speculating as to whether or not the edit was warranted, or about what the poster said. Just my opinion. Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Ramsey 810181 Posted March 4, 2011 at 06:06 PM Posted March 4, 2011 at 06:06 PM I split this discussion off from the main post. I still don't understand how things would be better if Gunnar had left a note , i.e., "Removed for CoC A1 violation"? Is anything really gained without being able to see what the exact post/violation was, and wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the moderation? I will allow how transparency, as much as possible, is often better, but I think this would kick off a deeper discussion/argument about the goodness or badness of if it really was a violation. We have enough internet lawyers around here and this strikes me as fodder for them. Kyle Ramsey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alistair Thomson Posted March 4, 2011 at 11:46 PM Posted March 4, 2011 at 11:46 PM I split this discussion off from the main post.…I still don't understand how things would be better if Gunnar had left a note , i.e., "Removed for CoC A1 violation"?… I seem to have started this but had Gunnar said his "inappropriate language" bit in his original intervention, I would absolutely not have posted. So thinking about that, why am I content with that brief explanation, but not content without it? It seems to me that I'm showing a basic lack of trust there, for which I apologise. It is better to have a reason stated, just like the one Gunnar gave, but really I have no right to expect one. Alistair Thomson === Definition: a gentleman is a flying instructor in a Piper Cherokee who can change tanks without getting his face slapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrol Larrok 1140797 Posted March 5, 2011 at 12:38 AM Posted March 5, 2011 at 12:38 AM I'm surprised no one is asking why VATSIM feels the need to shield us from inappropriate language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Kolin Posted March 5, 2011 at 12:42 AM Posted March 5, 2011 at 12:42 AM Is anything really gained without being able to see what the exact post/violation was, and wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the moderation? I will allow how transparency, as much as possible, is often better, but I think this would kick off a deeper discussion/argument about the goodness or badness of if it really was a violation. We have enough internet lawyers around here and this strikes me as fodder for them. Perhaps it's early onset dementia, but I don't recall many cases of this happening. Generally a moderator will leave a short comment of "be nice" or "don't mention people by name" and I don't think people have an issue with that. Generally moderation here has a relatively light touch and folks tend to communicate why something was removed. Opacity, rather than transparency, tends to kick off the discussions and arguments. This is a good example of it. Cheers! Luke ... I spawn hundreds of children a day. They are daemons because they are easier to kill. The first four remain stubbornly alive despite my (and their) best efforts. ... Normal in my household makes you a member of a visible minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom van der elst Posted March 5, 2011 at 12:43 AM Posted March 5, 2011 at 12:43 AM I'm surprised no one is asking why VATSIM feels the need to shield us from inappropriate language. Because we don't have to. We're guests here and so they have every right to shield whatever they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Tyndall 1087023 Posted April 2, 2011 at 06:58 PM Posted April 2, 2011 at 06:58 PM I'm surprised no one is asking why VATSIM feels the need to shield us from inappropriate language. I am surprised, Darrol, why you don't want to be shielded from inappropriate language. Knowing your age, and I only know this because it became a corrollary issue behind a previous posting you contributed to. let me ask you, do you curse, either at school, at home, or amongst your friends? If so, why? If so, does it make a person a better person? If so, where did you learn to curse? From your parents, your siblings (if any), your "crowd", your friends, your schoolmates? I would hope the answer to my first question is "no", but sadly there are a great number of "younger" people in these forums who cannot answer that question in the negative. We have a membership from 13 to 60-70 (maybe 80) years of age. None of those members should be subjected to inappropriate language, especially those who are still legally underage and it ought to be (and I believe is) our moral obligation if not a legal one. Get on XBox Live COD Black Ops and listen to how many "squeaky", obviously underage young kids, will curse a blue streak dropping the famous bomb using the letter of the alphabet preceded by "E" (trying not to get Mod'd here) ON LINE if you shoot them or "take their hiding spot". Sad...very sad. And yes, Darrol, I am an old guy who didn't grow up that way, wasn't raised that way, didn't raise my children that way, and don't want to see my grandkids raised that way. Do I curse...yes...but I am always...ALWAYS...aware of my surroundings and the people who surround me before I do. That is why I hope VATSIM and the Forums will continue to "shield" us from "inappropriate language". Randy Tyndall - KBOI ZLA I-11/vACC Portugal P4 “A ship is always safe in the harbor. But that’s not why they build ships” --Michael Bevington ID 814931, Former VATSIM Board of Governors Vice President of Pilot Training Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrol Larrok 1140797 Posted April 2, 2011 at 08:15 PM Posted April 2, 2011 at 08:15 PM This is a worthwhile conversation, actually. Trust me I find online squakers as as annoying as the next guy, but words are just...words. The disagreement here is probably a generation gap. To me, 'cursing' is ordinary language(with the exception of highly offensive racial slurs and similar). I do use those words quite often offline, and it makes no difference as to whether or not I'm a better person, it's not a factor. There just words, a part of the way someone chooses to communicate. You can use them unintelligently, or intelligently. They don't have any negative effects that they aren't given. I honestly have some difficulty seeing the issue here. The words in question are one of the best ways to convey strong feelings, humor and such in text. Is there any chance you could explain what you feel the problem is with these words being used. You seem to feel quite strongly on the subject, and I'm not sure why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Tyndall 1087023 Posted April 2, 2011 at 09:05 PM Posted April 2, 2011 at 09:05 PM Darrol, highly offensive Definition please. Normal cursing to you is highly offensive to others. Racial slurs, while apparently (and for good reason) highly offensive to you are, sadly, not to others. So where in the definition to "highly offensive" do we draw the line. It has to be drawn at the lowest possible common denominator to protect others. Change is inevitable. Darrol. Even one of the older persuasion as I know that. The differences between my youth and now concerning what is acceptable and normal are sometimes quite shocking to me...yet "normal" to others. I realize this is my...and only my...perception. I wonder what changes you will see in your lifetime and how many things are "outside the norm" to you now, yet will be perfectly acceptable then...and you won't understand why. That's where I am right now...wondering why. We all have different interpretations and levels of acceptability. I think it behooves us as an organization to at least make the attempt the encomp[Mod - Happy Thoughts] the greatest amount of "protection" that reaches the greatest amount of members. Certainly it will never be everyone because the there will always be that very, very small minority that we can never encomp[Mod - Happy Thoughts], but I hope VATSIM will continue to try. Randy Tyndall - KBOI ZLA I-11/vACC Portugal P4 “A ship is always safe in the harbor. But that’s not why they build ships” --Michael Bevington ID 814931, Former VATSIM Board of Governors Vice President of Pilot Training Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrol Larrok 1140797 Posted April 2, 2011 at 09:14 PM Posted April 2, 2011 at 09:14 PM Something becomes 'highly offensive' when it is an attack on others. Normal 'cursing' is not, by itself, an attack on anyone. So, to me offensive, is if it is an attack on others. If it's not, it's unlikely to be offensive. I disagree with the idea of protecting others from words. This isn't terribly relevant here, but protecting people from words and ideas is never a good thing, it simply allows people to look at the world from their perspective, without being forced to see changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Tyndall 1087023 Posted April 2, 2011 at 09:38 PM Posted April 2, 2011 at 09:38 PM (edited) Offensive 1. upsetting, insulting, or irritating: causing anger, resentment, or moral outrage 2. unpleasant to senses: causing physical repugnance 3. used when attacking: used, or designed to be used, when attacking Interesting that when I googled "Offensive" the listing of definitions, which are typically listed in order of most common to least common, your definition is the last one (least common) listed. Darrol, please don't misunderstand me, because I know from your posts that you are an intelligent young man. We see eye to eye on many things and opposing views on others. That is the nature of mankind. This is one of those "opposing" things. I see cursing as upsetting, insulting, and irritating when in an "open" environment. You see it as normal. I see this environment as "open" and the potential to be offensive 1, offensive 2, or offensive 3 is high and, consequently, we as a membership need to be sensitive to others. That is what Gunnar was being, sensitive to others. In the words of Caiaphas (and repeated by Spock in The Wrath of Khan Star Trek movie)... The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)." Edited April 3, 2011 at 01:32 AM by Guest Randy Tyndall - KBOI ZLA I-11/vACC Portugal P4 “A ship is always safe in the harbor. But that’s not why they build ships” --Michael Bevington ID 814931, Former VATSIM Board of Governors Vice President of Pilot Training Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrol Larrok 1140797 Posted April 2, 2011 at 10:36 PM Posted April 2, 2011 at 10:36 PM Although overall I disagree with you on that point(I don't feel people should censor themselves or others simply to make others feel more comfortable. In this context, I would agree with that, due to VATSIM's unique nature. In this case, it is a bit necessary to be a bit more sensitive than I would ordinarily support because of the difficulties in maintaining reasonable behavior on a internet forum. So, yes, on second thought it does seem fairly reasonable to moderate this board, for the reasons of avoiding the 'internet effect' of forums becoming...unproductive and silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Vienonen 1136602 Posted April 2, 2011 at 11:19 PM Posted April 2, 2011 at 11:19 PM I am wondering why the original post was deleted entirely. If it was for defamatory, infringing, obscene, vulgar, profane, unlawful or other such types of communications, couldn't the gist of the message still be made by "editing" out the offensive words? I understand the need to clean up the language but to remove the entire thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum McLoughlin Posted April 2, 2011 at 11:41 PM Posted April 2, 2011 at 11:41 PM It would have been easier just to remove the entire thread then we wouldn't have 2 pages discussing the moderation of the said post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Kolin Posted April 3, 2011 at 01:13 AM Posted April 3, 2011 at 01:13 AM It would have been easier just to remove the entire thread then we wouldn't have 2 pages discussing the moderation of the said post. In the short run, yes. Cheers! Luke ... I spawn hundreds of children a day. They are daemons because they are easier to kill. The first four remain stubbornly alive despite my (and their) best efforts. ... Normal in my household makes you a member of a visible minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Tyndall 1087023 Posted April 3, 2011 at 01:25 AM Posted April 3, 2011 at 01:25 AM That is entirely true gentlemen, and yet for as many posts as I have seen on this Forum turn completely vitriolic and become locked to keep things in check and civil, Darrol and I just proved that you can disagree and discuss in public and on these forums without becoming demeaning, demanding, or degrading. My respect for Darrol increased ten-fold today, my belief that VATSIM is an awesome environment and in good hands remains unwavering, and I apologize if you found this thread uninformational and not worth the time spent to read. I thought I was helping to make this place in the virtual arena a better place in a small way...apparently I was wrong. I'll quietly climb back in the virtual cockpit and just fly. Cheers Randy Tyndall - KBOI ZLA I-11/vACC Portugal P4 “A ship is always safe in the harbor. But that’s not why they build ships” --Michael Bevington ID 814931, Former VATSIM Board of Governors Vice President of Pilot Training Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum McLoughlin Posted April 3, 2011 at 01:34 AM Posted April 3, 2011 at 01:34 AM You have my attention now, Luke - please explain I imagine you're going to say that this is a conversation that needed to happen at some point, and was really quite inevitable and I agree. The problem I have is the setting and the circomestance. I much prefer a wider argument rather than the exact specifics of an individual case, (I cite the OBS->C1 thread as my example). It allows a far wider reaching discussion to take place rather than constantly referring back to a largely unknown case, which often give rise to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umptions and dare I say it, far fetched "conspiracy theories". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts