Censorship on this forum

If you have been following the thread relating to the social structure in Wedding, Berlin, you may have noticed that following a rather over the top post by member FirstCitizen, myself and member Krostitzer stood up to the aggressive and uninformed comments by the said poster. Our comments were altered and in some cases deleted by moderators of this forum. Our comments were in no way offensive, and in fact the initial comments by FirstCitizen were left on the forum, and continued efforts by myself and Kotstitzer to address the balance were met by our posts being deleted by the moderators.

What we requested from the moderators was that they informed readers of the post that the content of various posts had been altered, and in some cases deleted. However the moderators refused to do this, and so I was left with posts on the thread that did not contain the text I wrote, and I was not allowed to comment further on my objections to the initial post which I considered offensive.

What I consider even more offensive, is that the moderators refused to allow me to comment publically on the forum on my frustration that the moderators were anonymously changing the content of posts and threads, without informing readers that they've done so.

This means that you cannot be sure that what you read is what people have actually posted - and if you post, there is no guarantee that someone, who you do not know, will change the content of your post, without the reader being aware that this has happened. Now I don't have a problem with moderators removing spam and dodgy content, however, I still think that if they do so, they should make it public that this has been done.

So I ask the people who participate in this forum to comment on their thoughts. Do you feel it is appropriate that moderators can change your text, or delete your posts, without any public visibility? Are you happy that moderators can change anything you write without other readers of your post being aware? Are you aware that this can be done, and is done without the knowledge of readers of your posts?

I'm all for a well managed forum, but the way I see it is that some of the moderators are operating as gods, and not sure that this is really how things were intended.

Regards,
Colin

I've experienced your frustrations oft but upon reflection i've usually deserved it tbh.

Some of the mods can be heavy handed though i agree.

This has been discussed on here several times before though like Censorship on TT.

Most (actually all) other forums I use show a "last edited by:" tag at the bottom if they've been altered by anyone since first posting.

Censorship? You do realise the owners of a website are legaly culpable for everything we dross deceide to type?
Go to bed, sleep on it, and dont take it seriously. Or alernativley. Do not go to bed and post tons of stuff venting of your anger at this cruel and horrid world and how unfair it is while the mods take their 20 winks or what ever it is a mod does when they arn't screening our posts for dissent and liableous content.

I have experienced it a lot lately and I find it totally annoying. This has only been lately to this degree so I don't know from whom it is coming from. I am still trying to figure out why I am targeted and not others? I posted something in response to a badly worded title and I get deleted yet the next 10 posts are repeats of mine and they don't get deleted. If I were paranoid, I would think that I am being unfairly targeted. Oh wait, I am paranoid. Hell, I got banned for something that I didn't do! Oh well, life goes on and the mods are stuck here pissing about. HAHAHHA, I fly to Köln tomorrow while the mods remove garbage from garbage threads. What a life?

As you may have noticed, this forum does not show this information, as you would expect. I'm not sure what the people who run the forum have to fear from making clear to readers that they have altered or deleted content from a topic.

Colin

In which way were your post "altered", colinmanning? Were they just shortened or rewritten (I doubt the latter, which would be very time-consuming)? Taking into account the fact that the owner of a site is liable for its content, I think they have a right to edit. The owner offers a platform for discussion and therefore can set rules.

If there was a note each time something is edited, the amount of unnecessary personal attacks and insults would become visible. But then the moderators would spend their time explaining what was edited and why.

I don't think it is "censorship". It's about a certain form (not content) which is insulting, doesn't contain arguments or information and isn't even entertaining. I don't think there is any danger that the moderators will delete every "damn".

Outside of copyright infringement problems, the absolute majority of edits are mod deemed off-topic, fluff or posts they consider alcohol influenced or just random BS. At least those are the majority of excuses given to delete people's posts. I quit looking at the garbage reasons given for removing my posts. Personally, I would love to respond to their demeaning reasons given and give them a taste of their own medicine. The site has an anti insult policy, but they use insults over and over again when removing posts and declaring their own personal reasons instead of following board reg reasons.

As for the site is owned by one person and they have the right to do what they will, uh, no they don't have that right if they want to succeed. They need people to use the site and they need the people to make the site what it is. A business owner without customers is a pretty pathetic business and in most businesses the customer is always right. The business owner can set the rules, but then they themselves have to follow the rules that they set and not arbitrarily delete posts because they don't get it or understand it. English comes in more forms that Brit and the "Brit" centric nature of this site is pretty obvious sometimes.

(From TT Guidelines)
Take care,
space

I agree with the above posts. TT is not a free democracy. There is no such thing as free speech.
However, if the mods are rewording peoples posts to the point where others could be lead to think
the words were posted by the orig. poster, then this is wrong.

Like others have said. If the mods are changing peoples posts, the the "Last updated by:" field
should be activated so everybody know that the post is not what the poster orig. put.

In theory a mod could change someones post enough to a point that the orig. poster could be
held liable in any legal issues. Even if the words posted were not what the OP ment to say but
were in fact modded by another. Who will then be responsible for the the legal ramifications?
Will the mods stand-up and accept responsibility in the court?

As I indicated, my primary objection is not that the moderators can alter or delete content (although I do find this inappropriate except in the case of spam, and seriously offensive or potentially libleous content). What I have been asking for is that if content is changed or deleted by moderators, then it is clear to the readers of a topic that this has been done. So if I write a post, and a moderator alters it for any reason, the reader can see that the content has been moderated - similarily if a post has been removed from a topic, the reader can see that the moderators have removed the post (just change to the content to "removed because: xxxxx")

Remember that anyone who has been a member for at least 6 months and posted at least 100 posts can moderate content - so it is not just the owners of the site who are controlling content.

Just to remind readers, the post that me and others found offensive was from a member FirstCitizen, who suggested that Berlin would be a better city if raized to the ground, and that it should be burned down with people like me burned with it - that's what I call offensive content. This guy's post was altered to remove his use of "F-words", and so his posts sounded less offensive, while my replies (and those of one other member) which were in no way ofensive, were moved altogether - the reader of the topic could not see at all that the moderators had changed the content of the topic.

Regards,

Colin

Well said Darkknight - thats exactly the point I have been trying to make.

Colin

Look up at the top of the page under the "xtras" section for Removed posts, Moderated titles and Topic title editors. There you will
find the info your looking for.


Wrong. A poster can only modify a post that they posted. If you are not a member, then the time you can do this is limited to 20min.
If you are a supporter, then the limit is 2hrs. ONLY the OP of a post can change its content in the time limit. The exception to this, are
the mods. ONLY Mods can change any post at any time. At last count there were 8 Mods/Admins who can do this.

I can see your point. If the Post from FirstCitizen was as bad as you state, the entire thread should have been removed
not modded to sound less offensive.

Hi RainyDays,

My intiial response to the offensive post from member FirstCitizen, was altered to remove my use of the word "arsehole" to describe the poster - my use of the term was in jest, as he described the Berlin district of Wedding as th "arsehole of northern europe". In fact, if you could see my reply (which you can't as the modertors have deleted it), my only complaint was that FirstCitizen has displayed a lack of knowledge the history of the Wedding district of Berlin - which I have elaborated on in subsequent posts. Folliwing that reply, FirstCitizen, not seeing the sarchasm and possible wit in my reply, replied with a comment on the size of my posterior, to which I made a further (possibly witty) reply which was also deleted.

Now, the moderators removed the "arse..." words, and the "F-words" used by FirstCitizen. They deleted my replies and that of member Krostilitizer, who also found offense with FirstCitizen's opinions. When I complained in the topic that the posts have been changed and removed, the moderators simply continued to remove my posts (and those of Krostilitizer).

Now all of this would not have been a problem if the moderators simply posted to the topic to say that they found the content was getting too fiery, and that they were altering things as a result. This would not cause the moderators much trouble, as they are monitoring all posts in detail anyway, and if they alter or delete the content, they send the poster a private message. So all I am saying is that the moderators should make their comments in these situations visible to readers of the post, so that people can see what contributors are saying, and how their content may have been changed - not very complicated, and it means the moderators decisions are visible, and so the moderators are no longer making decisions anonymously.

Regards,

Colin

Eurovol, you seem to be more sensitive to insults (?) directed towards you than to offensive words that you sometimes use generously yourself.


Isn't freedom of speech always limited by other important rights, e.g. the right of an individual to be protected against slander? On the internet, because of the anonymity, people are tempted to test the boundaries, more than in real life.

Colinmanning, it's difficult to judge this particular case without knowing the original posts. Sure there can be debatable interventions of the mods, as they also depend on subjective criterias for what is acceptable or not. Overall, it's not an easy task to monitor without stifling the debate, and the mods are IMO doing a very good job.

I disagree that the thread should be removed. Firstly, FirstCitizen hijacked a perfectly good topic, and secondly, if there it is better that people can see the opinions of others, even if thoe opinions are offensive (after all offensiveness is subjective) or pure nonsence.

Why is this in "Life in Berlin"?

Surely it should be moved to "Metachat".

Idiot moderators.

I re-interate that my problem is not the details of the particular debate - rather that moderators anonymously change and/or delete posts, without the readers of the topic being aware that this has occurred. I am simply using my particular experience as an example. I think that it is completely unacceptable that people read the posts in a topic without knowing that the content of the posts may have been altered by the moderators, and that some posts may have been removed.

Colin

I started this topic in "Life In Berlin" as this is where I encountered the problem with the moderators, and I am hoping that people who are interested in this thread will see the topic, and comment if interested.

I appreciate that this issue is relevant to lots of other members, but I think it is best to keep it in a highlt visible thread, rather than bury it in a "geeky" place where most members don't visit.

Colin

I see your point, you are advocating for more transparency, however, I can also understand why there are no notifications of modded posts – this would probably lead to endless meta-discussions about the editing which wouldn't make the thread very readable. It's a bit of a dilemma.

I once knew a forum where the discussions got so meta that the whole website eventually just disappeared up its own arse.

out of interest - i had read the entire unedited thread about the wedding issue - and it was fairly offensive (i certainly agree that FC was writing some absolutely ridiculous stuff). i posted a reply, to the effect that it amuses me how people are often happy to say the most outrageous things when they can hide behind the anonymity of the internet. the moderators let me know that my post was removed as they had cleaned up the thread, and therefore no longer made sense (which is fine). however, it was with some surprise that i saw they had left the bulk of FC's posts, and deleted many of the responses (from both colin and krostitzer, and obviously, myself).

i don't profess to have the answer, but it certainly is a fine line between keeping it 'clean', and censoring. in addition to the fact that FC had hijacked a perfectly interesting thread to fulfill his/her own aggressive agenda.

just some thoughts, from someone who had the opportunity to read the whole thing before it was 'sanitised'.

I prefer to call it censorship as that is what it is . It should only be used with the lightest of touch. I do not think the censors should be changing what someone has posted. they should remove the whole post or leave it. Regeretably power does go to some peoples heads and they cannot resisist changing things. If someone objects to the censorship I think a reason should be given to at least guide the person on what they have done wrong.

I think the people who do this should validate what they do to try not becoming big brother. There is less freedom of speech in the world than 30 yeasr ago.

Hi Malcolm,

You just used one of the wordsin your post that appears to be one the reason for one of your moderators removing one of my posts - so it looks like it's one law for you guys (moderators etc.), and one law for the rest of us. So now that one of you has come out of the woods, how about explaining why you (and/or your associated) altered and removed the relevant posts, and effectively changed the complete thrust of the topic that FirstCitizen clearly hijacked. I think at this stage that eating a little bit of humble pie on the part of Toytown Germany will get the site alot of respect from most of the regular users.

Yours in hope,

Colin

Sorry but as someone who has run an IT business in Germany, I don't agree with this statement. Any sensible "Terms And Conditions", or in German parlance "AGB", will put the responsibiity of the content of posts on to the registered poster. As Toytown only allows posts from registered and validated users, then if their terms and conditions do not protect themselves from contentious or potentially libelous posts, then they are not operating in a professional or sensible way.

Colin

Colin, I didn't read what was removed, nor even the thread. But as a clarification, there's nothing particularly wrong with the word "arse". Using it to describe someone is considered a personal attack and therefore normally removed. Using a swear word in a title is also frowned upon and will be removed or altered.

First of all, as per the forum usage guidelines, the contents of posts are not usually edited. On the rare occasion that they are edited, the poster is informed via PM.

Colinmanning's key complaint is that when an edit takes place there is no transparency. That is to say, other forum readers are not made aware of any edit.

His secondary complaint is that members such as FirstCitizen are permitted to express their opinions. He believes that such aggressive posters don't belong on this forum.

Regards post edits: On being informed via PM of an edit, a post author will agree 99% of the time that the edit was justified. The moderators don't have any political agenda to pursue. They're not trying to supress the free flow of information. In fact, quite the opposite. They work in order to make information flow more freely and to keep the dialogues civil. Today's complaint is the first edit complaint I can recall in over a year, certainly so far this year. If the post author is happy with an edit, then there is no need for a public statement. It would be completely irrelevant. Why should anybody care that "post author and forum moderator both agreed that above post should be edited, and it was therefore edited accordingly". Nobody cares. It brings nothing to whatever is being discussed in the thread. If post author and moderator both agree on the edit, it is as if the post author made the edit themselves. As mentioned by someone else earlier in this thread, such public statements would only serve to encourage off-topic meta chat. Yes, it might be nice if every post carried it's own Wikipedia-style edit history. But the forum software doesn't support that, so there's not much we can do about it.

Posts are frequently removed completely. The average rate is about 5% of all posts per day, or 50 out of 1,000. Removal is on grounds of being off topic, personal attack, spam, or just plain garbage. Sometimes newcomers are given notification via PM about post removal, but more experienced members are not. Instead they can check the post removals page.

Post removal, however, is not the topic under discussion in this thread. We are discussing post content edits only.

As for today's particular accusation of "censorship", this has flared up as a result of something FirstCitizen posted to the topic The social structure in Berlin's Wedding district. He wrote:


colinmanning then reponded with something like:


The discussion then proceeded to go off topic as personal attacks were traded. Eventually a post was reported via the forum's report function. A moderator then stepped in and changed the above two posts as follows:



That was it. Two very minor edits. The word "arsehole" was changed to "armpit" and "you're the arsehole" was changed to "you're wrong". And the members caught up in this discussion were informed via PM about the edit.

As for the rationale behind the edit, it may seem trivial and unnecessary now. But in context it served to pacify the discussion and to prevent it from a spiral descent into a flame war. Plus, importantly, the general meaning of the posts was not changed. Only the tone.

Subsequent to the above two posts that were edited, the following posts were then all removed completely on grounds of being either personal attacks or off topic. colinmanning was told repeatedly via PM that if he wished to lodge a public complaint about moderation then he should post to Metachat. Instead he continued to post to the "Life in Wedding" topic, hence the repeated removals of very similar posts.

Removed off topic personal attacks and moderation complaints:









The TT forum moderation system is not fully automated like it is on some other platforms (e.g. slashdot). Instead there is a strong "human judgement" element to the moderation. I think, however, we manage to get the balance about right most of the time. It's not a question of "censorship". As mentioned, we have no political agenda to pursue. Rather, we just do our best to keep the discussions on topic and free of flame wars.

I'll think of you in grey wet Cologne while I'm sat on a beach in warm sunny Australia drinking pina colada and drunkenly deleting your garbage.

That last post should be removed on the basis that it tends towards "Spawny Get" realism.

First point is correct, second not. I don't object to FirstCitizen or any other member being able to express their opinions, be they aggressive or not. My complaint, is that it is not possible to make a reasonable response to such opinions without the risk of the response being edited or deleted, and so people who post objectionable and/or uninformed posts (my key objection was the uninformed nature of the content) get a free ride, due to the over sensitive nature of the moderators to members criticizing each other.

Colin

There is no question that the site owners set the rules and have every right to do so...

The question remains although, as to whether not making an indication on the post itself that it was edited by moderators is slightly misleading for those reading the thread later.

In my humble opinion, the answer is a definitive yes!

If i post something and the post is edited (by moderators) without marking the post, then the post will be taken as my content when in fact it no longer is.

OK, it wasn't you, colin, who said FirstCitizen is overly aggressive and not welcome here. It was krositzer who said that. Fair enough.

As for your complaint that is is "not possible to make a reasonable response", that is wrong. It is patently possible to post reasonable reponses. Calling someone an arsehole, however, is not a reasonable response.

You agree with the rest of my two posts above then, colin? Good. Case solved.

Pleb, but if you approve of the edit, then the content is effectively yours.

I had long been led to believe that the TT web servers resided within said anal cavity, are you saying this is not the case?

It depends on the context - as I have pointed out elsewhere, the comment was clearly sarcastic, and a direct reference to the language FirstCitizen used in his post. Why do you guys get so up tight about some of this stuff - agree that it is not desirable for a forum to become a platform for people to constantly slag each other off, but some amount of criticism of other members when it is relevant to posts made must, in my opinion be possible - I think that you've got the boundaries wrong on this.

Colin

I got all the way to Post #27 before I realised there was a smell of Bullshit and bollocks in the air!!

I sure whish the mods wood get tough on morans who carnt spel got no idea of gramma and dont know how to use the apostrofe your the worst threat to TT, get to school with your kids.

FirstCitizen is a twat but he can right english ok.

my posts have been moderated in the past without notification. as a result i don't try to post as much and especially don't get involved in too heavy discussions as i find it very annoying.
my advice: sleep over it and post less on TT.

It’s Sarabyrd she’s the biggest culprit.

Not sure if the vision of a mod with tough wood is compatible with my breakfast.

I think that depends entirely on the "someone" in question

Oi! I resemble that remark!

unless you have proof that is slander...

or very close to the mark...

They block all my troll logins and I am a troll.

I'd go out on a limb and suggest that it's you getting uptight about stuff. Most other people seem capable of simply getting on with it, unbothered or at least unflustered by the moderation policies of Toytown. Tis only a very few like your good self and Eurovol, to name but two, who get their virtual knickers in a twist. Hmmm, both born in 1961, maybe there's something to that.

Ooooh, I never knew we got evaluations from the members. Ed Bob, you shoulda told me!

It's only slander if you got proof that it's untrue. Let's call it a rumour for the time being.


Yep you do. There's a secret vote in the secret forum every Thursday night.

And yep, some of my posts have been edited in a way that distorted their meaning/contents/tone (and I never got any notification either). Never come across something like this on any other forum I post on and I don't particularly appreciate it on this one.

You're not up to date! It's been moved to Wednesday afternoon! But don't tell anybody else, ok?

Seriously, though: This contradicts what Editor Bob was writing earlier. Can we clarify if this really happened, or if it was a misunderstanding of some sort?