Discussing discussions

[Clariman]

Please re-read the announcement post here viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6959 , with specific reference to the first paragraph below the quoted text. That should make it perfectly clear.

Ok, so just to be perfectly clear, as I read that paragraph, along with the revised rule: if I want to post a short extract from the Independent and I decide ("it is the user's responsibility") that fair dealing overrides ("to comply with copyright law") the Indie's absolutist position for the extract I want to post, then I can do so without fear of any moderator action.

Yes?

Seems fair enough to me if it conforms to other things in rules. However we still reserve the right to remove it if we see fit.

[redsturgeon]

Please re-read the announcement post here viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6959 , with specific reference to the first paragraph below the quoted text. That should make it perfectly clear.

Ok, so just to be perfectly clear, as I read that paragraph, along with the revised rule: if I want to post a short extract from the Independent and I decide ("it is the user's responsibility") that fair dealing overrides ("to comply with copyright law") the Indie's absolutist position for the extract I want to post, then I can do so without fear of any moderator action.

Yes?

It depends...

as long as no other rules were broken

Context is everything.

John

[Raptor]

Please re-read the announcement post here viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6959 , with specific reference to the first paragraph below the quoted text. That should make it perfectly clear.

Ok, so just to be perfectly clear, as I read that paragraph, along with the revised rule: if I want to post a short extract from the Independent and I decide ("it is the user's responsibility") that fair dealing overrides ("to comply with copyright law") the Indie's absolutist position for the extract I want to post, then I can do so without fear of any moderator action.

Yes?

Depends on what the post is about but yes you have understood it perfectly.

Raptor.

[dspp]

[1] Anyway, and putting paranoia to one side, I contend that the moderation of PD is being made much more aggressive and interventionalist than it actually need be,

[2] It was interesting, and salutary, to read that advertising revenue has been compromised by comments made in PD............. Or that any thread attempting to debate race, ........ is similarly threatening revenue?
How threatening to revenue is it for, in one person's opinion, a comment to have moved sufficiently far off topic to be wiped in its entirety?

[3] I'm sorry, but a lighter, and more consistent, touch will with some certainty lead to reduced mod workload; and trust more in your members not to put revenue at risk by explaining just what your advertisers object to.

1. It is the opinion of the mod du jour that matters most. They do their best. I was modded from time to time down there, and I've tried to adjust my behaviour not to get modded since. The aim should not be to keep testing where the boundary lies.

2. Revenue is not the primary test, all the rules matter and most of them would be there irrespective of revenue, in fact most likely all of them. Regarding revenues my suspicion is that Google etc (and 99% of it is Google) are equally under the cosh from the pols and they just write bots that squash us so that they can say they are acting against XXX content. There is no right of appeal if/when the Googlebot opines. That is the reality of the modern world online. By the way we as TLF (i.e. Stooz & Clariman) never get an explanation from the Googlebots so there is not much point asking us for one. That's just how it is.

3. My opinion only. The mods of the day in the PD area are doing their best to exercise a light and consistent touch. We are all entitled to our own opinions. Like I say I adjusted my behaviour to not attract mod ire in PD.

regards, dspp

[mswjr]

[1] Anyway, and putting paranoia to one side, I contend that the moderation of PD is being made much more aggressive and interventionalist than it actually need be,

[2] It was interesting, and salutary, to read that advertising revenue has been compromised by comments made in PD............. Or that any thread attempting to debate race, ........ is similarly threatening revenue?
How threatening to revenue is it for, in one person's opinion, a comment to have moved sufficiently far off topic to be wiped in its entirety?

[3] I'm sorry, but a lighter, and more consistent, touch will with some certainty lead to reduced mod workload; and trust more in your members not to put revenue at risk by explaining just what your advertisers object to.

1. It is the opinion of the mod du jour that matters most. They do their best. I was modded from time to time down there, and I've tried to adjust my behaviour not to get modded since. The aim should not be to keep testing where the boundary lies.

2. Revenue is not the primary test, all the rules matter and most of them would be there irrespective of revenue, in fact most likely all of them. Regarding revenues my suspicion is that Google etc (and 99% of it is Google) are equally under the cosh from the pols and they just write bots that squash us so that they can say they are acting against XXX content. There is no right of appeal if/when the Googlebot opines. That is the reality of the modern world online. By the way we as TLF (i.e. Stooz & Clariman) never get an explanation from the Googlebots so there is not much point asking us for one. That's just how it is.

3. My opinion only. The mods of the day in the PD area are doing their best to exercise a light and consistent touch. We are all entitled to our own opinions. Like I say I adjusted my behaviour to not attract mod ire in PD.

regards, dspp

Thank you for your reply.

1. Rather than assume there exists a juvenile desire to keep testing a boundary, how about contemplating whether or not conflict is occurring (when it does) by the boundary lurching about inconsistently?
eg what rule breaks caused (for instance) threads on 13th and 14th Aug to be so precipitously locked? (To counter a charge of paranoia, I'll record I was not involved with either).

2. I was not aware of that, thank you for the explanation of just how this online stuff works- not that I'm much wiser, tbh. However, I referred to revenue because it was put forward as the reason for strong moderation. (Back to reasons for locking the recent threads).

3. My opinion only. 'Strong' (and inconsistent) moderation is causing its own 'problems'. A lighter touch, a more consistent touch, and the 'problems' within PD will reduce naturally. The risk is that overactive modding of 'problems' leads to a belief that PD itself is the 'problem', perhaps then leading to a shut down. And that would be a shame.

I accept this all makes me sound unappreciative, but (believe it or not) I have no appetite for true conflict with TLF and its mods. Why should I? It's a marvellous effort, and I would rather contribute than merely 'take' by only ever reading other people's efforts.
I do find some aspects of inconsistent moderation however, increasingly difficult to deal with, and I question where you think it is taking PD.
Try a lighter touch. Enjoy differing opinions. If revenue starts being compromised, then explain why.

[Lootman]

1. It is the opinion of the mod du jour that matters most. They do their best. I was modded from time to time down there, and I've tried to adjust my behaviour not to get modded since. The aim should not be to keep testing where the boundary lies.

I don't think anyone should probe the boundaries solely to be an agent provocateur. But the exact phrasing of a rule matters because that is what we use, and all we can use, to determine what we can and cannot say. The underlying assumption has to be that if X isn't expressly forbidden, then X is allowed. And that there are no hidden rules that also apply.

The moderators have some wiggle room there, and some inconsistency is to be expected. But if someone goes to that boundary but does not cross it, that has to be OK, as long as it is not done to be a pest but solely to convey a point.

I'm not usually shy about criticising rules and moderation, neither here nor on TMF. But I have to say that this copyright issue doesn't bother me either way. I don't post a lot of links and I often don't read those provided by others. I prefer words, ideas and arguments to an endless quest for truth and perfection that, at least on political issues, can never be reached. There are ultimately no facts in politics, only values and opinions. Moreover facts can be interpreted in many ways - a high rate of tax evasion may indicate that it should be cracked down on more (a left wing view, typically) or that it shows that tax rates are too high and should be reduced (a Laffer-inspired right-wing view). And so on.

Citations are sometimes necessary, but rarely sufficient.

[Alaric]

In the course of reviewing the Indie's Ts & Cs it turned out that others were making similar land grab Ts & Cs claims (i.e. no quotation allowed at all). I can't recall who as the individual entities are not that relevant. But there are quite a few.

Isn't the Independent's stance equivalent to a land owner putting up a fence over an established public footpath saying no entry. They can put up a sign, but that doesn't take way the established rights.

[dspp]

In the course of reviewing the Indie's Ts & Cs it turned out that others were making similar land grab Ts & Cs claims (i.e. no quotation allowed at all). I can't recall who as the individual entities are not that relevant. But there are quite a few.

Isn't the Independent's stance equivalent to a land owner putting up a fence over an established public footpath saying no entry. They can put up a sign, but that doesn't take way the established rights.

Correct.

[mswjr]

Forgive me for being obstinately thick, but just what rules were broken to an extent that required two recent PD threads to be summarily locked- the ones locked on 13th and 14th August, to be exact?
Thank you.

[dspp]

Forgive me for being obstinately thick, but just what rules were broken to an extent that required two recent PD threads to be summarily locked- the ones locked on 13th and 14th August, to be exact?
Thank you.

I don't think it is helpful to go there, regards, dspp

[mswjr]

Forgive me for being obstinately thick, but just what rules were broken to an extent that required two recent PD threads to be summarily locked- the ones locked on 13th and 14th August, to be exact?
Thank you.

I don't think it is helpful to go there, regards, dspp

Then how will we learn? What can be unhelpful about answering a request for guidance?

[ursaminortaur]

Please re-read the announcement post here viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6959 , with specific reference to the first paragraph below the quoted text. That should make it perfectly clear.

Ok, so just to be perfectly clear, as I read that paragraph, along with the revised rule: if I want to post a short extract from the Independent and I decide ("it is the user's responsibility") that fair dealing overrides ("to comply with copyright law") the Indie's absolutist position for the extract I want to post, then I can do so without fear of any moderator action.

Yes?

Seems fair enough to me if it conforms to other things in rules. However we still reserve the right to remove it if we see fit.

Clariman,

Thanks for the clarifications.
Thanks also to Gengulphus and others who continued discussing this issue - I obviously was premature in my assessment that no accomodation could be reached.
Given the clarification I will happily resume posting.