Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
Zapping questions
49 Answers
Ed, when you zap an unwanted poster, is there any possibility of you actually looking at the question and the responses to that question before zapping the whole thread? There was an excellent question in R&S which produced some very intelligent and considered responses - but because the person who posted it is obviously no longer welcome on AB, the whole thing has disappeared. Tragic! What a complete waste of time - and brains!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm a newbie to the AB, so I don't know much about how it works yet. If there is only the one editor/moderator, then he should get some capable assistants to help him. Browsing some of the subjects I've found some stupid and wrong or otherwise unhelpful answers that should, in my opinion only, have been removed.
This one aroused my curiosity, but not having seen the original I can't comment beyond what was said in the High Court in1999: Lord Justice Sedley stated in the notable UK high court judgement Redmond-Bate vs Director of Public Prosecutions [1999]: “Free speech includes not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, providing it does not intend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”
I've not posted any comment on the answers that I thought should have been removed because of their content, because I have no intention of starting any 'flame wars'. I'll watch to see if anyone comments on this, but will not respond any further.
Freedom of speech and the site owners' right to run it as he sees fit is more important than pointless arguements. If I or others don't like it, we can go elsewhere.
This one aroused my curiosity, but not having seen the original I can't comment beyond what was said in the High Court in1999: Lord Justice Sedley stated in the notable UK high court judgement Redmond-Bate vs Director of Public Prosecutions [1999]: “Free speech includes not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, providing it does not intend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”
I've not posted any comment on the answers that I thought should have been removed because of their content, because I have no intention of starting any 'flame wars'. I'll watch to see if anyone comments on this, but will not respond any further.
Freedom of speech and the site owners' right to run it as he sees fit is more important than pointless arguements. If I or others don't like it, we can go elsewhere.
I can't actually see why you posted that on this thread, realcleverclogs, but perhaps it's because as you say, you hadn't looked at the original - although of course the Ed has zapped it back so it's there if you want to see it.
Here's the link:
http://www.theanswerb...y/Question978008.html
Here's the link:
http://www.theanswerb...y/Question978008.html
I added my twopennyworth because it appeared to me from what I read that posts or posters had arbitrarily been removed. The quote of Judge Seedley's judgement was to remind people that real Free Speech is something we ought to value even if we disagree with what is said, but of course it's not my forum and the owner/editor can do what he likes without me condemning him for it. That is also his inalienable right.
I've looked at the link and discussing religion or politics is too delicate a subject for me unless I know the people better and they me, and we can do it face to face where misunderstandings are easier to clear up immediately. My apologies if my views have offended anyone; that was not my intention. I'll withdraw from this discussion.
I've looked at the link and discussing religion or politics is too delicate a subject for me unless I know the people better and they me, and we can do it face to face where misunderstandings are easier to clear up immediately. My apologies if my views have offended anyone; that was not my intention. I'll withdraw from this discussion.
realcleverclogs, Oh I don't think your views have offended anyone in the slightest. I just didn't understand why you posted something about free speech here. It's now clear that you didn't understand why the thread we're talking about was removed so please allow me to explain. It wasn't due to the content or to any restriction on freedom of speech - but solely because the person who asked the question was not welcome on AB. Consequently everything he had contributed was deleted, including that question along with all the answers to it.
I’m obviously still looking in, in case someone else should have anything to say in defence of free speech.
To answer the last post first, I made the point about free speech because that is what the discussion appeared to be about. Removing someone because he is not welcome on the AB seems very drastic when there appears to be no reason given to substantiate that. Looking at the original question mikebavo posted, that was all he did. He took no further part, unless those posts were also arbitrarily removed, but the rest of the discussion was quite reasonable considering the subject. So what did he do that makes him unwelcome and by whom was he unwelcome, just in case I fall foul of the same transgression. The only other post in this thread that seemed reasoned and reasonable was by NOX right at the beginning.
I looked at the proposed rules by Spare Ed and they seemed reasonable, though again in my opinion, rules should be fully considered and refined before being posted as rules, unless he was just asking for comments before finalising them, but maybe that is a comment I should not be posting here either.
To answer the last post first, I made the point about free speech because that is what the discussion appeared to be about. Removing someone because he is not welcome on the AB seems very drastic when there appears to be no reason given to substantiate that. Looking at the original question mikebavo posted, that was all he did. He took no further part, unless those posts were also arbitrarily removed, but the rest of the discussion was quite reasonable considering the subject. So what did he do that makes him unwelcome and by whom was he unwelcome, just in case I fall foul of the same transgression. The only other post in this thread that seemed reasoned and reasonable was by NOX right at the beginning.
I looked at the proposed rules by Spare Ed and they seemed reasonable, though again in my opinion, rules should be fully considered and refined before being posted as rules, unless he was just asking for comments before finalising them, but maybe that is a comment I should not be posting here either.
Bannings usually occur when rules are repeatedly broken,and may be due to bullying,or abuse of other members.
Generally,any member who is banned will have all posts removed. Some who have been banned attempt to come back on by registering new names. If they behave-they MAY survive....but most will be recognised in some way-posting style,etc.-and be removed-again.
Most likely,the poster mikebravo was a permanently banned member,and for that reason his thread was removed. Many on here believe that if a thread draws a lot of positive participation and lively discussion,then it should not be removed.
Generally,any member who is banned will have all posts removed. Some who have been banned attempt to come back on by registering new names. If they behave-they MAY survive....but most will be recognised in some way-posting style,etc.-and be removed-again.
Most likely,the poster mikebravo was a permanently banned member,and for that reason his thread was removed. Many on here believe that if a thread draws a lot of positive participation and lively discussion,then it should not be removed.
That sounds very reasonable and I think that sort of poster is referred to as a Troll, or is that only for questions/answers that are designed to stir up nasty responses or ill-feeling?
That brings me back to my point, there was no sign of that in his question and if it was in parts that were removed, then it leaves a measure of distrust in the whole set up for someone like me who has come in to the ‘half-discussion’ that is left behind.
If he has posted other similar items elsewhere in the AB, then I would not know how to find them, but feel they should be treated similarly and if that was the reason for his removal, then give the full reason when someone asks about it, not just resurrect part of a thread and leave it open to speculation.
Your final sentence seems to me to make the best point, but then we all admire the wisdom of those who appear to agree with us.
To save anyone searching to see if I am a banned poster returning with a new ID, I was told about the answerbank by a friend who posted questions in the computing section and that is the only other place you will find a response by me.
That brings me back to my point, there was no sign of that in his question and if it was in parts that were removed, then it leaves a measure of distrust in the whole set up for someone like me who has come in to the ‘half-discussion’ that is left behind.
If he has posted other similar items elsewhere in the AB, then I would not know how to find them, but feel they should be treated similarly and if that was the reason for his removal, then give the full reason when someone asks about it, not just resurrect part of a thread and leave it open to speculation.
Your final sentence seems to me to make the best point, but then we all admire the wisdom of those who appear to agree with us.
To save anyone searching to see if I am a banned poster returning with a new ID, I was told about the answerbank by a friend who posted questions in the computing section and that is the only other place you will find a response by me.
