Amiga.org and Bias

[SirLancelotDuLac]

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.

Bill,

You are incorrect; a person's views go hand in hand with their behavior.  If you are moderating someone's behavior, you are censoring their views.  Just because you don't agree with their views on acceptable behavior, does not mean that you are not censoring their views.

According to webster's dictionary, censor is defined as the following.

Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing  /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
Date: 1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

And a moderator is defined as the following.

Main Entry: mod·er·a·tor
Pronunciation: 'mä-d&-"rA-t&r
Function: noun
Date: circa 1560
1 : one who arbitrates : MEDIATOR
2 : one who presides over an assembly, meeting, or discussion: as a : the presiding officer of a Presbyterian governing body b : the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting c : the chairman of a discussion group
3 : a substance (as graphite) used for slowing down neutrons in a nuclear reactor

So the difference is a moderator essentially organizes the meeting or discussion board we have here, which Amiga.orgs moderators do well.  A censor, however, removes objectionable content, which the moderators here also do.  Let's not kid ourselves people, any site that removes objectionable content censors its users, period.  That being said, it is not necessarily a bad thing.  If you compare Amiga.org to Moo Bunny, the topics on Amiga.org have never degraded to the level many topics on Moo Bunny degrade to.  (Don't misunderstand me, I love the bunny, but its lack of censorship does have its downside).

Aside from restricting certain words, censorship is based purely on one's opinion.  I have seen many times when one person considers another person's response to be a flame, but when I read it, I do not see fire anywhere.  Bill, you obviously agree with the Amiga.org moderator's opinions more than other sites.  Does that make them any more right than the other site's opinion?  No it does not.  Just as Amiga.orgs opinion is not any less right that other websites opinion.

The other side of this is that the moderators need to accept the fact that they ARE CENSORS and because of this it is really is to APPEAR BIASED.  The question they really have to ask themselves is, are they?  If they would let any one person get away with something that they have moderated when someone else did it, even if that person they let slide is another moderator, then yes they are BIASED.  If you do not want appear biased you have to treat EVERYONE equally, which, if you look at human history, is impossible to do.  The moderators here might just have to deal with the fact that there are people out there that disagree with them and consider them biased because of it.  If you can not deal with that FACT, you should not be a moderator.

[SirLancelotDuLac]

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

Bill,

You missed my point entirely (and yes I did get your point before).  Antisocial behaviour IS a matter of opinion, PERIOD.  The majority generally determines what anti-social behavior is, but that does not change the fact that it is their VIEW, which can be in opposition to other peoples VIEWS.  For instance, in America, public nudity is considered bad behavior and against the law.  There are many here who disagree with that, however, they will be arrested if they express their VIEWS.  Censoring is censoring no matter how you try to color-coat it, however, that does NOT make it a bad thing.

This site DOES censor, it is NOT a bad thing, but if you CENSOR people, you are going to be accused of taking sides, PERIOD.  To contrast, Moo Bunny DOES NOT censor, it is also NOT a bad thing, but it too DOES have its down sides.

This site is continually being accused of applying pro-Genesi censorship, which as far as I can tell is not true.

I think it should be obvious as to why this site is considered pro-Genesi, because of Wayne, his previous position as webmaster, his recent employment by Genesi and his continued involvment of this site.  Do those facts make the accusations correct?  HELL NO.  Does that mean Wayne should stop being involved with the site?  HELL NO  But those facts do mean the moderators need to walk a very thin line with their moderation or they will be accused of it.  If Amiga.org does not want to be accused of taking sides, it needs to be very careful how it applies its moderation.

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.

As stated before, what should be censorsed is a matter of opinion and so are the reasons why.  You may believe the censorship happens because of "political" agenda and the censors may feel it's because they violate the websites policies.  Just because you disagree with them, does not make you right.

On the other hand, I have more respect for a website that OPENLY applies political censorship than one that applies political censorship but claims it does not.  

For the record, I have not seen Amiga.org apply any political censorship and would be very disappointed if they started.  (Unless of course they announced that was their intention before hand)  (I missed all of the comments that supposedly got Ray removed, so I refuse to take side in that mess since I don't know all of the facts)

[SirLancelotDuLac]

Antisocial behaviour IS a matter of opinion, PERIOD.

@Bill

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.

Who applied generalizations and absolutes together?  I stated an absolute fact; everything is an opinion, period.  Terrorists MURDERED thousands of people by crashing planes in the world trade center.  In my opinion, they were WRONG AND EVIL for doing so.  However, in their opinion, they were RIGHT AND JUSTIFIED!  America murdered many terrorists retaliating for that act.  In most Americans opinion, we were RIGHT AND JUSTIFIED!  However, in others opinion we were WRONG AND EVIL!  

If murder is just plain wrong, then it should be wrong in both directions, however, I bet you would find it difficult to find someone say a man was wrong for murdering the person who murdered his wife and children.  If someone steals from me and there are loopholes in the law preventing me from getting it back legally, am I wrong for breaking the law and stealing MY property back?  

Laws are the majorities opinion of what is right, sometimes they help bring justice, sometimes they help prevent it.  Sometimes the law gives you no choice and forces you to break it.  If you and your family were starving, you could not afford food and no one was willing to give it to you for free, would you not steal it from someone who has plenty?  Would you be wrong for doing so?  

If you simply look at this world in black and white, you will NEVER see the color it provides.

[SirLancelotDuLac]

@Argo

SirLancelotDuLac:
Wouldn't that be more of a matter of perspective? As who each person see/experience an event and interpets its meaning/significance to themselves. Thus forming an opinion on the relivant related topics.

Perspective, that's an excellent way of describing what I've been trying to explain.  If you grow up in a tribe of cannibals, are you wrong for thinking it's okay to eat humans?  Your experiences in life say it?s okay to do; my experiences say it's not and I should defend myself if you try to kill and eat me.  My personal opinion on what constitutes anti-social behavior is this: as long as everyone involved are consenting adults, it is NOT Anti-Social behavior, otherwise it is.  Your right to live should not infringe on my right to live, if it does, expect a fight.  This is why I believe censorship is not necessarily a bad thing, sometimes it takes a moderator to censor things so they won't infringe on other peoples rights.  Whether you want to consider it "censorship" or would rather use the sugar coated word "moderation", so be it.  Just realize both are infringing on one individual's views to avoid offending another.

May I ask what you do for a living? Do you have a degree in Sociology, Psycology, or Ethics? Just curious. I'm finding this facinating, though I hope it doesn't get cirular.

Nope, I am a computer programmer.  I'm just the type of guy who likes to sit back and observe.  I find it fascinating how people's personalities can be seen in almost every mundane action that they do.  I never even thought of pursuing a degree or career in Sociology, etc., probably because I didn't want it to become "the same old thing I do everyday."  I always put myself in "the other person's" shoes before I form an opinion to see if there is any possible reason for doing something.  I have found the best way to understand everyone else, is to strive to understand the self.  The more I understand about my habits and myself, the easier it is for my to understand someone else's habits.

[SirLancelotDuLac]

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

I assume Pixie is talking about the gentlemen who made a huge fuss recently on Mike moderating down comments on OSNews, which DOES allow comments being moderated down.  However, I only remember reading that thread on the Bunny and not on ANN.

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.

That is a matter of opinion and your tone is completely uncalled for on a "civilised" forum and deserves moderation.  The fact that you think Mike's comments on Amigaworld is "scathing" is your own opinion not shared by all.  As I said many times, just because it's your opinion, it does NOT make it right.

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.

Until people make uncivilised comments like yours above.  It works both ways, you can't be uncivilized to someone and expect them to be civilized back.  Even if you don't think Mike deserves being civil to, you could remain civilized out of respect for Amiga.org and keeping it a civil place.  If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

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.

I agree, that comparison of your views with Hitler was going a bit far, as was your rude comment directed at Mike Buoma.