Has censorship come to this board?

[Pat D]

This has curtailed his activities somewhat. No need to look at censorhip. Fortunately, neither he nor his wife were killed but as I recall she had some injuries, too. A search at AA would probably show more details.

Some people have noted that the computer logic won't accept certain words, so that is a type of censorship, I suppose.

[skeptic]

Some people have noted that the computer logic won't accept certain words, so that is a type of censorship, I suppose.

That is not censorship unless those are words which some people consider unacceptable in polite company such as anglo saxonisms. Then in the strictest sense, technically, you are correct. Otherwise that is a software glitch. However, in the truest and most meaningful sense, as long as there is no banning on the expression of some ideas, there is no real censorship. There are many words which the software will accept to express the same thoughts.

When acting as a censor, Jon Risch is merely a poodle enforcing the policies of the owners and sponsors of his board by restricting discussions to "positive experiences" with cables as Rod put it in his proposed mission statement. If anything happened to him (and I can't imagine why anyone would wish that) there would be an instant replacement which would be equally effective at squashing any real debate.

In one of my rare visits to that Bizzarro world a couple of months ago after a few postings here regarding an unusually vociferous bout there involving the banning of someone named Steve Eddy, I noted that there seemed to be far more flame wars there than here. This points out the falacy of the anti DBT rule effectively preventing such wars. Anyone who comes here making blanket statements about the superiority of some cable or other knows he will be challenged to back it up with more than just an off the cuff endorsement. In other words, shills will be exposed for what they are ususally quickly and unceremoniously by someone like mrtycrafts. So far not only has this served to keep discussions here on a much higher level by far (even if it isn't as technically detailed) than at CA, but it continues to point out the stark contrast between the real nature of the two sites and why this one is of value while the other is worthless (unless you happen to be in the audio cable business.) Will it be allowed to continue that way here? We'll just have to wait and see.

[happy ears]

All depends what is involved with censorship. I do agree that insults should be limited however debating should not. I will stand by my belief that cables do make a difference, not a big difference but it is there. Some better some worse, other people may agree or disagree. Cannot not prove this and have no desire to, I hear a difference and that is all I have to stand by. I will let others prove or disprove what I hear.

The only posts which should be deleted are those that are offensive or insulting in nature. I do not consider debating an issue to be offensive or insulting. We each have our own opinions and beliefs and a right to discuss it. So happy debating and keep the punches above the beltline.

[skeptic]

I do agree that insults should be limited however debating should not.

The only posts which should be deleted are those that are offensive or insulting in nature. I do not consider debating an issue to be offensive or insulting. We each have our own opinions and beliefs and a right to discuss it.

And what kind of insult do you consider it when one debator takes it upon himself to put a gag in someone elses mouth by deleting his posts because he also happens to be the moderator? What kind of reply to that kind of offensiveness exceeds the bounds which you would impose, especially when the victim has no recourse except to complain on another bulletin board where the offender doesn't excercise that kind of control? It is perfectly understandable to me when people who have been the victims of this tyrant at the other board come here to hurl their insults at him for his outrages, especially when there is a commonality of people who post at both sites.

If someone is being unjustly insulted for no justifiable reason, then the rest of the community will jump on him and let him know that what he says is unacceptable. But when those insults are the only possible reply to repression of the kind of expression of opinions and beliefs you say they have a right to discuss, then that seems perfectly proper to me. Furthermore, when someone who abuses other peopes' privelege of free and open discussion he enjoyed on a far greater scale which allowed him to achieve the education which has brought him professional stature, and material comforts of life, he deserves all the abuse his victims care to hurl at him and far more. I for one am offended that he claims the title of engineer at all. He gets no more respect from me than a doctor working for the Nazi's would get performing experiments on human beings would get from other doctors with even a shred of ethics or morals.

[happy ears]

I have to agree with you on this, it is very dangerous to be both the moderator and the debater. Although I consider myself to be an honest and forthright person, I have to acknowledge that having a bad day at the office or with ones partner in life, just might be enough to retaliate against someone else. Using the forum to take out my frustrations on someone else that does not have the same power that I have is not acceptable, but this is human nature. This alone makes it dangerous to be both the moderator and debater, one may think that they are perfect, but lets not fool ourselves and others.

Deleting someone’s reply in a disagreement is unprofessional and unacceptable. This to me shows a lack in maturity or respect in others beliefs because they disagree with you. We do not have to agree with someone on any issue, but we should respect their beliefs no matter what that is. We may not understand it, but you most remember that it is their beliefs not ours. This is much easier to say than it is to do, that human nature problem again.

There are many reasons why one should not be a moderator and a debater on the same issues. Very few of use will be able to meet the standards that this will require. So to prevent conflict in ones requirement, the best would be to avoid the temptations and problems associated with it. There is little one can do when the cards are stacked against you, *****ing does help but it does not solve the problem. I would think that when a problem like this occurs, the members should be allowed to vote to force the guilty party to be either the moderator or the debater but not both. I will even allow the person to choose which one they prefer. The members should also be allowed to vote if there is a problem with a moderators enforcement of the rules. When your are the policemen you do not get to decide what crimes will be punished, this to is much more difficult then most people realize. Hopefully these type of problems will be in the minority and not a common problem.

Have A Great Day and enjoy the music, life is to short.

Note: Remember to bring field stereo for these longer jobs.

Happy Ears

[skeptic]

On a message board, the power to delete postings and ban a participant is the power of life and death, the moderator being judge, jury and executioner. A message board is not a democracy, it is a protected site under the control of the owner for a specific purpose, namely advertising products to generate profits for someone. How heavy handed the owner is in controlling debate determines whether or not the site is of any potential value to the participants. In the case of AR up to now, the moderators have taken a largely hands off approach allowing debate to flow freely wherever it might go and only stepping in when it became obvious that postings had far exceeded all reasonable bounds of civility. That is one of the main reasons it is valuable and successful IMO, and even I click on the advertising sites from time to time to see what is on offer. With the closing of the posting discussing Jon Risch and the new moderator stating that discussion of another site, its policies, and the statements and actions of its moderator were off bounds for discussion here, it was exhibiting exactly the same kind of control over debate that Jon exercises at his site. Why would this happen? We have to ask why someone would want to limit discussion of another site. Is it to protect that site from criticism? Why? Has this site been infiltrated by a censor from that site? Is this moderator or someone directing him in collusion with the other site? No answers but a lot of conjecture and suspicion. So far the lock on that thread has remained however, the discussion has moved to this thread and so far it has not been locked...yet! Does this mean that the moderator of this board has had second thoughts about what he did? Does it mean that he is acting alone as a mole and doesn't want to risk showing his hand too strongly too soon? No answers but a lot of questions. I'll be watching and if you value this site, every one of you will be watching too and screaming if things change.