Censorship on the ED forum

[paul32A]

Just wondering if anybody else thinks that for a supposedly democratic website the ED forum censors a large number of relevant comments. I have been censored several times for making valid points. Admittedly they may have been slightly sarcastic or ironic but that's only because they have been poking fun at the banality or irrelevance of previous comments. I really am shocked by how hypersensitive and precious the moderators are.

[LordLaneship]

Quite right Paul32A. Anybody would think it was the Daily Mail's website.

I am constantly bemused by the number of comments about various trivialities. Try and interject a bit of humour and you get censored. By the way can we do anything about the weather? It's freezing this January. I blame the lack of bobbies on the beat and the government cuts to education.

[LordLaneship]

It will be interesting to see if these comments are removed.

[Pearson]

...

Edited 100,000,000 time(s). Last edit was today, 01:17pm by Admin.

Reason: sarcasm/ humour fail

[silverfox]

I don't agree. I've never had a problem with the moderators/admin and I must be one of the most irritating posters on here.

[Narnia]

Not as irritating as flatchested paul.

[paul32A]

Alright then White Witch, how big are your norks? No need to resort to being offensive about how someone is born. Are you a racist too?

[Narnia]

Absolutely. I hate all races, especially the 800m.

[LordLaneship]

Paul32a are you male/female?

Nasty Narnia at it again, I see. She's a wrong un.

[Pearson]

Narnia has Moobs

[paul32A]

Is it a coincidence that the only thread Narnia hasn't posted on is the Flasher one?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

If you don't like the moderator's rules, start your own forum.

And leave Narnia alone, he's a darling.

[paul32A]

Anyone else fancy a cup of tea?

[Smeltz]

I have never thought removing comments from a thread that have no part of the conversation and completely dirveting the topic as censorship. More a case of keeping a thread flowing in the way it was initially intended.

Apologies if you are meaning something else entirely!

[LordLaneship]

.

[paul32A]

Smeltz - are you referring to my practical advice on avoiding muggings? It could have saved someone's life.

[Smeltz]

Excuse me but is it necessary to be rude and offensive? Yes I object to your assumptions of me being middle aged. I wouldn't mind silly comments like that if you actually knew who you were exchanging text with but you don't so leave it out.

If you want banter, smutty tongue in cheek comments and all that conversations can be taken to the lounge I believe.

There are particular rules to different sections of this forum. It's not that difficult to work out so why you getting your knickers in a twist?

[Smeltz]

Not at all paul.

[Dorothy]

I agree, it is quite heavily moderated and there are certain things you cannot say! Still, there is always the option to go elsewhere or watch some nice telly instead.

[LordLaneship]

Are you a moderator, Smeltz?

I never made any assumptions about your age. I simply implied that your views were a tad outdated. I would say very much the same about the Daily Mail.

What was smutty?? I haven't seen anything remotely risque yet you seem to think that somebody has pushed the envelope. Extraordinary.

[Penguin68]

In my experience remarks disappear (of course, I've only seen some which have later disappeared, I haven't seen all those which have vanished) if they breach the law (incite racial hatred, are clearly libellous, may fall into contempt-of-court's space etc.) if they are clearly and gratuitously offensive without breaching the law or if they are entirely off-topic and could derail what is otherwise a focused discussion - i.e. should probably have been started as a thread in their own right. Sometimes linked remarks also get removed, even when not meeting any of these criteria where their continued presence (when what they are responding to is gone) would just be confusing.

Humerous remarks don't get excised gratuitously, but where humour becomes the order of the day some threads on this forum are (quite properly) lounged.

I would suggest that censorship and editing (although sometimes achieving the same ends) are driven by quite different motives. I see no evidence of censorship (but of course, as I have said, I evidently don't see everything) although I do see evidence of sensible editing, removing material which doesn't belong (for the reasons cited above) in a public forum, or in specific threads on that forum.

I write as someone who has reported material which I believe breached, in particular, legal boundaries.

[paul32A]

Penguin - I'm having a party tonight, and you sound like a laugh - wanna pop along?

[Penguin68]

Paul 32A - I assume to be laughed at... thanks but no thanks

[Narnia]

paul32A Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is it a coincidence that the only thread Narnia

> hasn't posted on is the Flasher one?

Oh yes I did, and a much appreciated post it was too!

[Narnia]

Dorothy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree, it is quite heavily moderated and there

> are certain things you cannot say! Still, there is

> always the option to go elsewhere or watch some

> nice telly instead.

What do you want to say Dot that you can't? Go on, give us a clue.