PDA

View Full Version : Censorship in the Vets



graham paul
-7th June 2017, 08:01
I have been using the Veterans Face Book group to discuss Vets issues because I prefer knowing who is posting, as opposed to the often anonymous posts on the Forum. Yesterday I posted on Face Book concerning ‘International Results’. The post was immediately removed by someone who presumably disagreed and rather than enter into a rational discussion found it easier to delete the post and all my previous posts to this group. I can no longer access the group and so am posting on the Forum.

I understand that other postings on the timetable for the Open Championships have also been removed. I find this type censorship intolerable. If someone disagrees they should put their views forward, not suppress other peoples views.

We need reason discussion not censorship. It is even possible for me to be wrong!

Graham Paul
(If you post on the Forum, please have the courage to add your name to the end)

hokers
-7th June 2017, 10:47
Anonymity allows people to say what they really want freely. That has good and bad implications I'll accept but it's everyone's right to choose what they say about themselves online. This is why "doxxing" is considered so unfair and is banned by most forums. Everyone gets to choose how they represent themselves.

Some people use a second (or third or more) alternate account for expressing things they don't want associated with their main posting history, doubling up on the levels of anonymity.

Censorship is what people always cry when they get moderated, and while it's usually wrong in principle, it's occasionally right in practice when it distracts significantly from the purpose of the discussion or strays into breaking the rules. It should usually be accompanied with some explanation of the reasoning behind it though.

jacquesdor
-7th June 2017, 11:00
Perhaps I was one of the few to read Graham's Facebook post. It was perfectly acceptable; disappointing that it's removal without explanation on such an important subject starts this thread.




Jacques Portal

cesh_fencing
-7th June 2017, 11:27
I think in the same way that many threads have been moderated/people blocked on this forum if LP/BF does not appreciate the sentiment expressed, people who run Facebook pages are completely correct in moderating their own pages if they feel the comments are mis-representative of their membership or unjustly detrimental to that organisation.

It can be a single post, repeated poking with nagging negative posts or just repeatedly trolling up arguments that had been put to rest (even if reworded) which can lead to people being blocked from FB pages. I have done this with pages I moderate in the past.

You could always set up an alternative 'Graham's Vets page' and invite all the people on the Vets page to join it, then you can air your grievances there and those who wish to hear those views will see them and be able to comment.

Gav
-7th June 2017, 11:53
I think in the same way that many threads have been moderated/people blocked on this forum if LP/BF does not appreciate the sentiment expressed...

I'm calling BS on this. I certainly don't do that. In the past there's been issues with people going over the top with commercial advertising and it's LP's call how they want to run the forum on that.

The BF thing tho... Try taking the tinfoil off.

cesh_fencing
-7th June 2017, 11:56
The BF thing tho... Try taking the tinfoil off.

Was there not something removed a couple of weeks ago criticizing BF policy on Uni Games selections?

AS it is on the Vets International thread there has been a full post by Gillian as to why Graham was monitored..

ChrisHeaps
-7th June 2017, 12:27
You could always set up an alternative 'Graham's Vets page' and invite all the people on the Vets page to join it, then you can air your grievances there and those who wish to hear those views will see them and be able to comment.

Careful! Kim Kardashian's ar$€ nearly broke the Internet. Imagine what Graham's page might do!

hokers
-7th June 2017, 12:36
Was there not something removed a couple of weeks ago criticizing BF policy on Uni Games selections?


Pretty sure that was because of the degree of personal attack that it got to, not related to policy.
I'm very far from a fan of the PD (called for her resignation in 2012) but that was a bit too much.

Gav
-7th June 2017, 13:25
Was there not something removed a couple of weeks ago criticizing BF policy on Uni Games selections?

AS it is on the Vets International thread there has been a full post by Gillian as to why Graham was monitored..

I don't remember that specific example: a general rule I don't pull posts. They only get pulled if they're nasty in some way or just spam.

Gillian's message isn't deleted, just hidden. She wanted to make corrections on it but had passsed the minimum post time.

As I said, take the tinfoil off the head.

ps. I have nothing to do with the Vets facebook group.

graham paul
-7th June 2017, 17:14
Anonymity allows people to say what they really want freely. That has good and bad implications I'll accept but it's everyone's right to choose what they say about themselves online.
I accept that there are pros and cons, I just think that the cons outweigh the pros.

Justice
-13th June 2017, 08:16
Graham,

Post it up here? I'm intrigued as to what caused such offence.


Simon Justice
(for completeness)

graham paul
-13th June 2017, 09:16
Graham,

Post it up here? I'm intrigued as to what caused such offence.


Simon Justice
(for completeness)
Simon,

I have committed the crime of canvassing members for their opinions, so if you are a member of BVF please do not reply with your opinion, because as a member of the Veterans committee I am not supposed to try to find out members views. I have been asked to ‘consider my position' on the committee for making the post. I have also been accused that this post is insulting to both the Veterans International Development Officer and to the Veterans Domestic Fencing Officer. The logic of this escapes me.

As the post below is already on the Forum under the heading of International Results it will not do any harm to repeat the words. So the words were-
In the last Europeans GB came 5th in the medal table. We have done better in the past, but the real worry is that virtually all the medals came from cat3 4/5. We need to encourage the younger fencers into the vets and raise the standards. I believe that this should be far more of a priority than a new selection scheme which is the equivalent of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Graham