"Do Not Disturb" Flag - Writers Forum

teflon · 10-27-2005, 11:33 AM

A case of recent oversensitive censorship of a perceived attack on one of the parties has actually disrupted much wanted communication between the parties.

I think it would help to have an option for two or more parties to set a flag in a given thread, such as a "do not disturb", or "do not censor" with caveats such as , "if you are sensitive, do not complain."

Londongrey · 10-27-2005, 12:28 PM

We already have that Tef, it's called the PM system.

teflon · 10-27-2005, 12:34 PM

but the PM system works only between 2 people. A thread should be open to all who are aware of the caveat and enter knowing the implications.

Londongrey · 10-27-2005, 12:38 PM

Debate Forum - Rules

teflon · 10-27-2005, 12:50 PM

I do not mean a debate thread. What I observe and read as a PM feedback from my correspondents, is the hassle caused by our imaginative diatribes in poetry or prose or my own threads (which I keep lighthearted and far from debating) that have been easily misconstrued, as being non-politically correct, anti-this, anti-that. Censors back off when sent copies of PM exchange between the willing participants.

Londongrey · 10-27-2005, 12:55 PM

That's a bit vague Teflon. I know which Thread you are referring to and I know the history. To conduct that Thread in the matter that it was broke the Posting Guidelines and the rules of the forum. It was a personal tiff in a writing forum.

So censorship had nothing to do with it, it was two fully grown men having a personal argument on a public forum. Both know better.

teflon · 10-27-2005, 12:58 PM

but it turned out to be otherwise, the recipient of the feedback thanked me for it and is outraged at the censorship. I can forward you the PMs.

Londongrey · 10-27-2005, 12:59 PM

Regardless, the rules are the rules. Tough luck. When they pay for their own site they can do what they want.

But from my own many experiences on here the system I find is fair.

teflon · 10-27-2005, 01:04 PM

and the money does allow for the disclaimer code, which does exempt a poster from the rules being applied to him too strictly. However, the disclaimer notice does not accompany a thread title in the forums view, or on each of the pages or messages of the thread.

Londongrey · 10-27-2005, 01:14 PM

Which is why we have staff, who are not social workers, but are here to simply make sure the breaches of the rules which everyone is made aware of are dealt with in the best way posible.

This website is as human as possible without being a military camp, but when things are obviously just going on and on something has to be done to maintain the 'community' that is built here.

This website is built to be 'user' friendly and that is how the rules are constructed. So that the users of this site can traverse it without being impeded by idiots or feeling victimised.

If anyone has a problem then they should PM a member of staff. Who always respond and deal with it.

teflon · 10-27-2005, 01:27 PM

yes, you offer a good-sounding general mission statement. But, by way of reminding you, didn't you quit Lit several times over the selfsame mission statement being applied in a biased way, against others as well as you? I followed the events and agreed with you, not letting you know of that since back then Lit had no PM system.

Londongrey · 10-27-2005, 01:29 PM

Yes I did,

But what you do not know from my PM's with staff, including Chrispian, that I believed I had acted immaturely, been very much over-sensitive and apologised for my less than civilised behaviour.

I have been on both ends Teflon and still think the system is fair. I think that says that rather alot.

teflon · 10-27-2005, 01:38 PM

Well, you sound fair and objective. It is refreshing.

Would you say that the censors are trying to be fair and do a balancing act between the over-sensitive as well as the callous?

Could you also enlighten me on what constituted your immature or unscivilized behavior back then. I was not aware of that. I think you were faultless. I guess I am your biased fan.

Londongrey · 10-27-2005, 01:42 PM

Well, there is no point going back over spilt milk. Many of my responses back then could have done with a step back rather than a step forward.

Of course the staff try to resolve every issue in the best way. They have been eternally patient with me, being a complete head case!

The staff do a good job.

teflon · 10-27-2005, 01:57 PM

I am inclined to use Shprockets' "you convince me."

however, continuing by editing:
I can't help and resort to the skills from my daytime profession. I review and critique content of contracts, public relation campaigns, and, what perfectly suits here, on-line content of political and corporate web sites versus their policies.

I could be salivating at the opportunity to jump at the issues in this thread. But I came to WF to take a break from analytical writing. Unfortunately, the concern within this thread demands an increased amount of intellectual honesty.

You are almost there when you invoke the image of a military camp. To be more correct, in reality, the job of supervisors is so efficient that the WF is far from being a military camp. It is more like a Liberal Science Department at a university. In other words, such a university is typicsally totalitarian in its liberalism, catering to slightest squeal from individuals and groups that perceive themselves being threatened by differing opinions and suddenly strong arguments offered therein.

In light of the recent events, I backtrack and wonder why I did not write such squealing protests the minute I discovered a post that had anti-Semitic attacks encapsulated within militantly liberal outbursts against Israel; why I did not protest messages with thick anti-religious, anti-heterosexual, anti-American rhetoric. I can remember myself thinking that the message content was not sophisticated enough in its thrust to waste my time complaining. "Words can't really hurt me," as they say. I am here to read other people's writing, to render my opinion, especially when asked, as in the very case at hand.

Thus, I take comfort in reminding myself that I spend the critique energy on clients that are mature to the point that they pay for my services. It can't be that when I offer the same kind of advice for free, suddenly this service is offensive. In other words, as in the case of the university, truth hurts.