Censorship

[Mike]

A quote from Greg J's post in the Mal Michael topic:

[Member]

I would like to take this time to say a few things.

To Mike,
I have never been miffed at what you did, anyone in your position would have done the same thing. I actually respect that.

I was miffed at users of your site that told me to go fourth and multiply. That I don't respect.

I respect people that can argue in a very logical way and not be condescending in the way the do it.

In regards to Mal, well I guess it was harsh to print that on here and maybe I should not have posted it.
Yet as I said in my previous post, I felt at the time everyone needed to know the real reason.

I can't tell anyone how I know. Maybe this issue will eventually come out in the correct forum that it should.

Thanks

[joffa#2001]

yey
welcome back 'member'
the joff still loves ya!!

[Mike]

Sorry Member it was an assumption I shouldn't have made. I always expect people to react if I have to mess with their posts and I saw your reaction and assumed that you were upset because you thought it was a cover up.

I take it from the lack of reaction to this post that everyone's happy with way we do things. If you're not I'd like to have your thoughts.

[Spidergirl]

Man i will say it again this whole internet thing is sooo damm stupid sometimes and makes so much trouble but i love it!

???

[Greg J]

Actually, Mike, I was refferring to the harsh comments directed at Member.

[conno]

I don't know what was said, but I am interested. I am a firm believer in the fact that while certain things said in a public forum can be libelous or damaging, the fact is, people have to be accountable for their actions.

If Mal did or allegedly did something shocking, it is reasonable to think that he should be held accountable by his fans and the public in general. Of course none of us like hearing bad things said about our "heroes", but essentially, we can't be given a false sense of who they are, thus allowing them a free reign in fear of retribution or sadness from the fans. It was this attitude that led to the acquittal of OJ Simpson, the MURDERER.

I truly believe that whatever was said should be allowed on the board. Legal reasons aside, while we don't like hearing BAD or destructive things written about our "heroes" (and one for example being the referecnce to the "The Players Don't Like Buckley" Topic), by shielding the guilty we encourage a trend of ignoring accountability.

If I was a Collingwood officer or any kind and saw conflict between Buckley and the players, I might, in an effort to keep the peace, ignore it. Once it reaches the public domain, it is a different story. Things HAVE TO change if that happens. Positive things occur. Every person in the world is accountable, whether in work, life or whatever. Remove the ability for that person to be accountable and morals, goals and goodness comes to an end.

Sorry if I sounded a bit like a septic there, but I am being serious. I really think that if this Mal thing is true, get it OUT THERE!!!

[mike b]

Mike,

First of all, congratulations on a very well written summary of your views on site censorship and codes of conduct. I think it clearly enunciates your position - both legal and moral.

I don't envy you in making such judgements, but I do agree that if "personal" rumours about players or club identities have no public substance (ie fact), then they can't be transmitted in this forum. I don't know what Mal Michael was supposed to have done. I would love to know (as I can't understand why we traded him), but only if it's fact - not rumour and innuendo. Furthermore, it's not this one instance which is at issue, but the pandora's box which gets opened if you allow it to continue without control. For every true rumour, I reckon there are ten false ones. It's bad enough getting excited around trade time with all the players that are supposed to be coming to the club, without the extra burden of reading about unfounded snippets on behaviour.

[Mike]

Firstly Conno, thank you for the response, I appreciate the opportunity to address questions raised by those who disagree with what we do, I am sure there are many. I have to be careful here not to shoot the messenger. Please don't take my response as a personal one, I am merely addressing the issues you raise.

One of the problems with moderating the board in the way that we do, is that it is tantalising. We moderate in the open, which means that all posts are made directly to the board and then modified later if necessary. That means that the people can see that something was altered and, of course, immediately want to know what it was. Other forums, e.g. the forum attached to the official Club site, have hidden moderation. That means that all posts go to the moderator first who then decides which posts are placed in the forum and posts them. Their method is much easier and safer because problem posts never appear, nor do the objections to deletions or modifications. It is a very peaceful form of moderation, compared to the one that we use, but it stamps the personality of the moderator very firmly on the whole board.

We run a small risk by allowing all posts to be seen publicly, but the system emails all posts in public forums to us as soon as they're posted, so problem posts can be identified very quickly. If we have to edit or delete we always leave evidence of having done so.

There are some problems with the logic of your argument Conno.

"I don't know what was said, but I am interested."

How can you have an opinion on whether or not the information should be public property if you don't know what it is?

"If Mal did or allegedly did something shocking, it is reasonable to think that he should be held accountable by his fans and the public in general."

How can someone be held accountable for an allegation? Accountability requires an action not an alleged action.

Protecting the guilty:

Guilty of what? ...and in whose opinion? Do you really believe that because something is said about someone that they are immediately guilty and that it is our duty to announce that to the world? I repeat what I said in my earlier post (above) that I never act merely to protect a player or the Club, but I do act to protect myself and this forum. mike b summed it up well "For every true rumour, I reckon there are ten false ones." Do we air the ten false ones and accept the subsequent damage that they might do in order to get to the truth? Should I be allowed to call you a murderer or a thief or a paedophile in public just because I've heard that you are? Of course not. Based on sheer statistical probability there's a chance that you may be, but here's also a chance that I may win tattslotto. Incidenatally Mal wasn't accused of any of these things, they're just used as an example. Even ignoring the problems it might cause us, do you really want to destroy somebody's character by perpetuating a rumour?

You discount the un-discountable as if you can do so just by saying it: "while certain things said in a public forum can be libelous or damaging, the fact is, people have to be accountable for their actions." and "Legal reasons aside". You can't just ignore these by dismissing them like that. They continue to control what we can and can't do regardless of whether or not you think that is right - and rightly so too.

Finally, your final statement: "I really think that if this Mal thing is true, get it OUT THERE!!!". I don't have a crystal ball...well, I do actually, but it doesn't seem to work. How can we possibly know whether or not it's true? I'm not going to make that judgement.

There is nothing I'd like more than to be able to make these things public and act on the collective opinion of everyone, but that introduces 'catch 22' and is obviously not a possibility.


mike b, thanks for understanding what we're trying to do and what I'm trying to say.

[Spidergirl]

ooooh fu@k me dead!
This is all toooo complicated for little Spidergirl. All i can say is watch what u say on here coz u never know who reading it and what trouble one little thing u say can cause.

???

[conno]

Fair enough Mike - you've obviously been put in a place where the best option is to just take it down - And you're right, the best thing you can EVER do is take it down but at least show everyone that you are editing the site. That way it is all out in the open...

conno

[Mike]

I thought I should let you know that JUBJUB made a couple of forgettable postings last night and I wiped them.

And I've deleted and banned him. If he wants to post on this board, he can join the other wannabe magpies in the VPT.

[Mike]

Please don't over-react. The last thing I want is a war between the two boards.

Both Big Footy and this site fill different needs and should be able to co-exist peacefully.

[CQ]

well maybe if they had a bit more brains...... their bulletin board sux so hard compared to this one.