Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Forum Censorship
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Stillman on
-
tell you what bee face you buzz off with your babbling balderdash and i'll wag my way off on a wonderful walkies.
put it there?
-
-
bzzzz....zzzzzzzz...zzzzzzz.....
zzzzzzz........zzzzzzzz.......zzzzzzz
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Like Andrew Stillman, I'd prefer still water to sparkling any day. But to stay on topic for a change, as I was chief culprit in going off topic for the sheer joy of greeting one of my favourite silent and invisible elected members, I am totally at one with Hugh in moderating me out of existence. Censorship fully deserved, bang bang to rights your Worship. Sparkle, please do try to get over yourself - you were just a fairly innocent bit of collateral in the latest shoot-out / shout-out between Cllr Ibrahim, myself and one or two of my sidekicks. In Dodge City you can't expect the Sheriff to pick up every stray bullet and trace it to its gun toter. Anyway, glad to see that at least one of our three elected members took the chance to reconfirm her existence if only for a few hours. Clearly the remaining two have been censored or disappeared by some power other than Hugh.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
They do Osbawn. The deletion on this occasion was due to the nature of the event that was the main topic of the thread and its unfortunate fit with an off-topic side discussion about whether or not a councillor contributes sufficiently to HoL. Had the discussion been in its own thread it wouldn't have been deleted. We put a clause about deleting under such circumstances in the T&Cs years ago (link in the grey strip at the bottom of any page), but have rarely taken action along these lines (much to the chagrin of some!)
The councillor did not request deletion.
-
Permalink Reply by Geraldine on
-
I am in favour of Hugh's moderating, which has included at least one of my own clumsier posts. I belong to a local forum in Hong Kong. The moderators are also volunteers but are not as dedicated as Hugh; hence, threads easily morph into people-bashing tirades. Honestly, no one wants to read that stuff!
-
-
you again with your sanctimonious balderdash. you lulled me to sleep last time. but as youve been so rude as to wake me up ill try for a third time to get an answer to my question that youve been dodging.
if some guests in your house started being rude to and upsetting other guests youd let them get on with it for fear of censoring them? (id use your name when addressing you.....but you've self-censored that).
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
The analogy used by Andrew Stillman and Hugh - of a guest in your home- is only partly apposite.
A website is not a face-to-face meeting of family, friends or even relative strangers in someone's home. And while it's probably more like a town meeting or gathering at the Agora, it still lacks the important face-to-face quality; humans-in-the-same-space. Which means that online group dynamics may or may not work in different ways.
It's really worth reading Clay Shirky on this issue. I recommend a talk he gave in 2003, called "A group is its own worst enemy". He drew from the work of the Tavistock Institute Psychologist Wilfred Bion, in particular his book "Experiences in Groups". (Many people know Bion from his famous fight/flight distinction.)
Shirky goes on to apply these and other insights to the then new and exploding world of online interactions. A roller coaster ride but not one where he claims to knows the destination. On the contrary, because - he says - it's truly a revolution Shirky is certain he doesn't know.
His talk does though, explain how and why online groups need rules and moderators to function well. And what goes wrong if they don't.
I wonder if Shirky realised that similar patterns and problems emerged in co-operative and collective face-to-face groups in the 1960s and 1970s. (There's a famous feminist pamphlet: "The Tyranny of Structurelessness".)
But anyway, he's probably still the best observer and commentator around on many problematic aspects of the online world. You may have seen a recent piece where he explains why he tells his students to turn off their smartphones and laptops."Lids Down!"
Now there's an interesting discussion. A professor trying to censor his students' internet access? No, a teacher and co-learner saying something like: Hey guys, can we please treat one another with full mutual respect and pay attention to the discussion in the here and now.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I have used some unmoderated sites over the years and the experience has been sometimes unpleasant and on one occasion actually frightening. Without a level of moderation there seem to be people who's sole purpose for being on the site is to be unpleasant about others who contribute. I think that this site is successful because the very light level of moderation means that people can feel fairly certain that they won't be subject to some of vile stuff you see elsewhere.
I also think the moderation on HoL is proportionate. While wandering well off subject is allowed on some threads a closer level of moderation is used on others. In this context I think that it entirely right that a thread about murder receives a higher level of moderation.
To give another example, there is a thread at the moment where people who knew George Meehan are leaving respects and memories of him. If someone wandered off subject or started tacking a contributor about another issue I would very much hope that site moderators would tackle this.
-
-
I'm shocked Michael, shocked I tell you, at your apostrophe abuse....and I thought you were a proper gentleman.....
-
-
Oop's!
-
Permalink Reply by ant on
-
Hi HoL Site Admin, if you're going to remove posts for more trivial reasons like being a bit off topic i think you should more proactively remove posts for being unpleasant. I don't follow HoL so much these days for a number of reasons, one being that it can be not such a happy place, but Tris's Finsbury Park thread was mentioned to me so i went and had a look. Just shocking. IMHO you should delete the entire thread and send a polite email to Tris asking to try again with a more constructive pleasant tone to suit what should be a friendly community forum.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
I agree ant.
Both Cllr. Ibrahim and I separately expressed shock and regret over the recent shooting in North London. Each of us were criticised for irrelevant, inconsequential reasons. It's not always easy to be an elected representative.
As a party political competitor, I could in any event be expected to have differences with Cllr. Ibrahim.
However, I have to say that I felt that the attacks on Emine were unfair, uncalled for and unreasonable. Given the background circumstances of a murder, they were also disappointing.
Clive Carter
Councillor
Liberal Democrat Party
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
