Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Censorship in the Vets

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    260

    Red face Censorship in the Vets

    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)

  2. #2
    ***** Legend hokers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Woking/Guildford
    Posts
    3,533

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Member jacquesdor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire
    Posts
    150

    Default

    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
    The longer I do it the harder it gets.

  4. #4
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    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.
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  5. #5
    Moderator Gav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    5,598

    Default

    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.
    "Evil does not wear a bonnet!"
    "Thanks Ants ... Thants.


    It is forbidden to dream again;
    We maim our joys or hide them;

  6. #6
    Chris Howser cesh_fencing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    East Northamptonshire - Yarwell
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gav View Post
    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..
    Oundle, Peterborough & Stamford Fencing

  7. #7
    Senior Member ChrisHeaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lytham
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    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!

  8. #8
    ***** Legend hokers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Woking/Guildford
    Posts
    3,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Moderator Gav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    5,598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cesh_fencing View Post
    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.
    "Evil does not wear a bonnet!"
    "Thanks Ants ... Thants.


    It is forbidden to dream again;
    We maim our joys or hide them;

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hokers View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Forum Rabbit Justice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Graham,

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


    Simon Justice
    (for completeness)

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice View Post
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •