Amiga.org and Bias

[bhoggett]

@Paul_Gadd

There is a difference between "moderation" and "censorship".

The first is welcome, and necessary if this forum is to remain civil.

The latter is not welcome, because it's aimed at people's views, not their behaviour.

IMHO, posts on amiga.org get moderated, in contract to other sites where censorship reigns supreme.

[bhoggett]

@SirLancelotDuLac

You're missing the point, even if you are right about the dictionary definition of each word.

There is a difference between censoring antisocial behaviour (swear words, personal attacks & insults etc), and censoring views on the basis of a political opinion.

This site is continually being accused of applying pro-Genesi censorship, which as far as I can tell is not true. It is however significant that the people who make those accusations are huge supporters of a site that openly does apply political censorship to its forums in favour of Amiga Inc.

I have frequently been critical of Amiga Inc, and I have been critical of Genesi too, when I feel the occasion deserves it.  The main difference is that I am allowed to do it here, whereas on other sites my criticism of one side would be censored while that of their opponents would be welcomed, even if I used similar language on both occasions.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to see politically motivated censorship here, although I do think it is necessary to enforce a certain level of civility.

[bhoggett]

@SirLancelotDuLac

I can't say I agree with you.

Antisocial behaviour IS a matter of opinion, PERIOD.

That's debatable.  If we're going by such absolutes, then everything is a matter of opinion, and there is no such thing as right or wrong. There is no upside or downside. There is no honest or dishonest. It's all a matter of opinion. People can say whatever they want, however abusive or untrue, because it's just a matter of opinion. Murder is not wrong, theft is not wrong, rape is not wrong... they're all a matter of opinion. Hell, there's nothing wrong in doing things that are illegal, because laws are only people's opinions too.

You see, when you apply generalisations and absolutes together, your view of the world will become seriously skewed.

[bhoggett]

@SirLancelotDuLac

I stated an absolute fact; everything is an opinion, period.

Well, yes, that's true in the absolute sense. Of course, that also means that everyone who has an opinion is biased, and since every thought anyone has is only an opinion, everyone is therefore biased.

Does that satisfy your analysis?

I now return you to your scheduled programming.

[bhoggett]

@uncharted

First it has become apparent that Wayne lied about his impartiality and abused his position here to further an agenda. I was very pissed off with Wayne as I was taken in by his little act.

I think you are wrong. Wayne did develop a dislike for the things happening at Amiga Inc - and I'm sure he's not alone - and he never said he did not have a personal preference.  What he said is that he was running the site on an impartial agenda, and I for one believe he was genuine in this.

Please note that Wayne resigned from Amiga.org before accepting his post at Genesi. He did this for the sake of the site and the community, not his own. After all, he could just as easily carried on running Amiga.org, Genesi employee or not.

Targhan is the only Genesi employee still involved in the running of Amiga.org, and in case you didn't notice, he was pulled short when he stepped over the line.

I think the continued criticism of this site is unwarranted. There used to be a time when people stayed away fom it because it was seen as a place for Amiga Inc "fanboys" only, and people who disagreed were made to feel unwelcome.  I wouldn't want it to return to that, particularly since we already have a site catering for that faction.

Thirdly there are 2 Genesi employees with high positions on here.

There is one. Wayne is only involved as an unofficial "technical advisor". He no longer has a say in site policy, as I understand it.

How would this site be better if it was run by Mike Bouma and his cronies?

I have seen no evidence of political bias. If people get abusive and disruptive, they will be removed no matter who they are. Of that I am certain.

Having said that, perhaps it might be wise for Dave (Targhan) to consider his position with relation to this site. I think him quite capable of moderating in an impartial fashion, but obviously the perception for others will be different simply because he is employed by Genesi.

It's a shame really.

[bhoggett]

@Vincent

I should point out that I have no problem whatsoever with Targhan's moderation. The only time he did step over the line slightly was in posting an editorial as a news item, but that has nothing to do with his role as moderator.

However, some people are using his status as a Genesi employee to attack Amiga.org, and we know that there are people just chomping at the bit to find some reason that proves how evil this place is.

I did see HMetal's posts that were moderated, though not whever it was that may have got him banned. Certainly the posts that were edited were both abusive and personal, and were rightly censored IMHO.

[bhoggett]

@pixie

Mike Bouma did not moderate comments down on AW.net, because that runs Xoops too and there is no option to moderate down.

Unless what you mean by "moderate down" is make one last scathing comment and then lock the thread, preventing the right of reply. Personally, I'd rather keep an interesting thread open and edit the offensive posts than allow abusers the ability to bring interesting debates to a premature end.

Frankly, if you want a completely anarchic environment where you can read anything - including the abuse - there's always the bunny. Next comes ANN, where people feel free to abuse others under the cloak of anonymity when they would never dare say the same thing under their own names. And then we have this place, which is IMHO the most civilised of the "open" forums.

Anarchy is fine in small doses, but I wouldn't want to see it everywhere, and I do happen to think that comparing my views with Hitler's is going a bit far.

[bhoggett]

@DaveP

Id like to believe (3) but considering there was a full 6 or so hours of selectively deleting my responses and me reposting what I had saved ( I only saved them after I noticed them "going missing" ).

I believe you Dave, but without hearing from the other side (the moderators) I'll refrain from comment. IMHO messages should not be removed entirely but edited instead, even if that means removing the entire content. An explanation would also be nice for any edit, but the drawback is that if people can't restrain themselves you will end up with massive threads of edited messages.

I also don't know how you can say ( in the other place ) that Wayne stepped down before accepting a post at Genesi. This is not in the public domain, all that I see is that he merely stepped down before starting his role officially.

You're splitting hairs Dave, but yes, I meant that he stepped down before taking up his position officially.  There are moderators elsewhere who "work for" certain companies without being officially employed by them.

Finally, I feel that you are being extremely hard on Mikey_C on this site and more than a little ruder than I have ever seen you before, can we have a cessation of hostilities if not open reconciliation?

The issue is tabled as far as I'm concerned. Nevertheless, I will continue to speak my mind and comment on issues or people's behaviour if I feel the need for it, irrespective of who they are. For me at least it is unacceptable to sacrifice truth for the sake of loyalty and if this makes me sound like a hypocrite, so be it.

[bhoggett]

@DaveP

Finally wrt Mikey, fair enough, I guess the suggestion is that in the past I have sacrificed truth for loyalty and am the hypocrite. Time will tell if I made the right decision or not.

I'm not referring to you Dave, but to others.

[bhoggett]

As to Amiga.org. I will refrain from commenting further, Kees appears to be doing the right thing atm. (i.e. making it more neutral)

Urgh!  I should hope not.

"Neutral" stinks. It basically means "let's not say anything that might offend anybody". The "neutral" response to anyone saying something you disagree with is to say absolutely nothing, as contradicting someone can be offensive and adversarial, and therefore not neutral.

No, I hope Amiga.org never becomes "neutral". It is to be hoped that Kees and the moderators can keep the sire "impartial", but I'd hate to think it will be completely free of controversy.