[quote]Lightowl: I think rampant censorship is harmful to the forum. I personally am beginning to feel pressured to restrict what ideas and what language I use. I certainly will think twice before I publish a controversial idea and I will probably hold back unless I am certain I will not be quieted without discussion.[/quote]
[quote]Bruce: I agree with your sentiment, lightowl. I'm in favor of allowing members to post without draconian threats of censorship or editing. To ensure this, ImmInst has maintained the Free Speech Forum.[/quote]
The problem with having a free speech forum is that this suggests that free speech is limited to this forum. In my opinion free speech should be generally acceptable. If I wish to speak freely about politics it should be allowed in that designated section, IMO. After all, that is where people who wish to read about politics go.
[quote]Lightowl: I have been looking around in the Catcher, which is the effective censorship log, and I find lots of threads that I would personally not have removed.[/quote]
[quote]John: Also be aware that some like to delete/edit their particular posts that were the reason for a passage being moved.[/quote]
Yes, the Catcher is not static at all. This could be a problem if it where to be used as a history indicator. Perhaps if implementing my suggestion is approved ( or some variation ), basic and full members should not be allowed to make changes in posts moved to the catcher. Additionally originals of changed posts should be added to the catcher so anyone can look them up and see what the fuzz was all about. ( This would be hiding the truth, not destroying it ).
[quote]Don: Granted, there may be particular points embedded within Chip's vitriol that have a grain of truth to them, but wouldn't you admit that the manner in which he has gone about criticizing ImmInst is unfair?[/quote]
To clarify, I specifically agree with his observation of the problem that leaders single-handedly can relocate posts and threads without seeking input from either members nor other leaders. I don't know the basis for his other criticisms to deem them unfair but I think discussion is always to prefer. All this talk about banning is in my opinion defeatist. I would hope a decent solution could be found.
[quote]Lightowl: I think rampant censorship is harmful to the forum. I personally am beginning to feel pressured to restrict what ideas and what language I use. I certainly will think twice before I publish a controversial idea and I will probably hold back unless I am certain I will not be quieted without discussion. [/quote]
[quote]Don: How may I ask are you feeling restricted?[/quote]
The fact that I have some very different opinions that some in the leadership makes me feel a subject to censorship. Since those leaders can alter my posts without me being notified makes me extremely weary. My posts could in principle be altered to reflect an opinion that is not mine. I know this is far fetched, but it is a problem in a censored environment. Especially when there is no peer review of those alterations.
I would like to protect the time I invest in this forum. I believe this community has the potential to make a difference in the fight against ageing. I am not about to give up because of democratic difficulties. Problems needs to be solved, not hidden away. This is what free speech is all about.
[quote]Don: Have you ever once been censored by this organization?[/quote]
This is the thing about censorship. You never really know when you have been censored unless you meticulously keep track of everything you say and how that is reproduced. In the case of this forum I have been trying to produce a list of posts of mine that have been changed or moved, but I found there was no tool to retrieve that information.
In the end it doesn't really matter if I have or have not been censored. The fact is that people are being censored and any member of this forum, full member or not, is potentially subject to censorship.
[quote]Don: I like your idea, I really do. You see, we have been looking for some time for a way to have an institute wide over sight of moderation. Perhaps it could work so that petitions could be created where, if a certain number of signatures was acquired, the thread could be brought before leadership for a reinstatement to its previous forum. I don't know, just tossing ideas around, but I do like the idea of getting Full Members more involved in the process.[/quote]
I am glad you agree with my intentions. I think a wider democracy is inevitably required to retain the integrity of this community. I also agree that there should be a minimum of signatures ( or votes ) required to change a moderators action.
[quote]Lightowl: You may argue that the Catcher is not censorship, but I disagree. It is effectively pushing back information to an "irrelevance" section that is labeled to invalidate its content. That will in effect discourage people from ever reading its content.[/quote]
[quote]Don: I think this is semantics to a certain extent. The Catcher is still displayed on the Active Topics list (something that will hopefully change very soon), so right now transferring a post to the catcher will often have the opposite effect of drawing attention to it.[/quote]
I think removing the catcher from the Active Topics list would only be a good idea if some other tool to monitor activity in that section is added. Otherwise it would further obscure the changes made to the posts of the members. I do not agree that it is semantics to a certain extent. Posts that are moved to the catcher is being pulled out of a content where it would have been read, and moved to a place that has no interest to the reader.
[quote]Don: While I value freedom of expression, I am also of the opinion that this is an online forum that has a right to moderate and protect itself as it sees fit.[/quote]
I agree. But I think the full members are very much a part of this forum and should have a saying in how the information THEY provide is handled. Also, it is debatable how much protection it gives the forum to let individuals rule in cases they are not equipped to rule in. It is after all the members of the forum who keeps it growing. It is very important not to forget this, IMO.
[quote]Chip: Try to get a majority vote on retrieval, that would be an uphill climb.[/quote]
I don't think that would be a problem. I think the current system of referendum and internal debate is effectively blocking any criticism members might have on the moderation of the forms. A simple poll will give people an option to say YES or NO without having to explain their opinion. This makes it easier for people to participate.
[quote]Chip: AND your suggested solution, lightowl, still though almost suggests it, does not touch upon the big problem, the incorporation of people into Imminst leadership who ax posts continuously on the basis of opinion and malice. As long as that is allowed and endorsed, one has to look deeper for any solution.[/quote]
My proposal would go a long way in identifying leaders that continually make decisions against the will of the full members. I think that process will give the directors a tool to make decisions on who not to elect into the leadership.
[quote]Caliban: This issue comes up time and again. [/quote]
Perhaps this is because there is an issue which is not being addressed.
[quote]Caliban: Regarding your suggestion: Read the constitution. Every Full Member has the right to suggest a referendum on any issue. [/quote]
The problem with this right is that it gives no power to the members. It places the decision back into the hands of the leadership which in turn places its faith in the hands of the censoring leader. This makes the issue not about the censored information but about the ability of the censoring leader to judge what should and should not be censored. In the long run that is the root cause, but when a specific situation is at hand it should be addressed promptly.
Also, a vote gives a certain freedom to the participants to express their opinion in a Boolean fashion. This makes it much easier for members to express any complaints. In addition, if members knew the vote has merit and can potentially change things, it is a much better incentive.
[quote]Caliban: As you have such strong views on the matter, I have missed your suggestions on the current discussion about the draft flamewar policy in the FullMembers forum. [/quote]
I seems to have missed that thread. Sorry. Now that I have read it I can comment. As I see it, it is some clarification of the guidelines that gives moderators a line to follow. But the problem remains that censorship is done on a case to case basis. In such a dynamic situation as an online forum is, no rules can be written that can address any situation that could arise. Furthermore, an attempt to write such a rule-set would make it virtually impossible to freely manage the forums. If every time a decision is made to moderate, the moderator should look up the correct action, it would be too heavy a workload.
Rules are good, but peer review is needed in my opinion.
[quote]Caliban: As a good American (I presume),[/quote]
Danish actually, and some would disagree on me being good at that
[quote]Caliban: this might strike you as very odd, but ImmInst mission is NOT to further Free Speech. If an unmoderated unregulated free-for-all forum is what you seek most of all, you might want to look elsewhere.[/quote]
I sincerely hope you can see the irony in this statement. You are proposing that if I don't want to be censored I should go express my ideas another place. The fact is that if I go somewhere else and express my ideas for example about the politics of immortality the discussion would very quickly be turned to the age old arguments about why we should not seek longer lives and about the possibility of extreme life extension. Also, this forum is where people passionate about life extension is expressing them selves and seek to find new ideas. To go somewhere else would defeat the purpose of expressing ideas about immortality.
[quote]Caliban: We respect free speech only as a means to an end: because if we were to restrict speech we might loose some valuable insight or contribution relevant to why we are here.[/quote]
This is exactly why free speech is so important and that censorship should not be the sole responsibility of individuals.
[quote]Caliban: In certain instances, the "speech" being made is not only not helpful however you look at it, but actually detracts from the quality of the debate or is hostile to a point where valuable contributors are chased away (or just don't bother to post anymore).[/quote]
I agree that some moderation is necessary. That is why I propose keeping overall moderation and add the option for the membership to collectively decide if a failure of moderation have been made. This is not that unreasonable is it?
[quote]Caliban: A post that is in keeping with the user agreement regarding high quality and good manners will not be censored. If that ever happens, please start a referendum or some other measure to address the error. [/quote]
High quality and good manners are highly subjective terms. It is my opinion that the judgment of one individual is not good enough to make the distinction between worthy and unworthy posts. I am frankly a bit surprised by your dismissive comments on this very important issue. This was a suggestion, not a question of what to do if I was censored.
Forward in peace