Kim a question of moderation

[Kevin]

Hi

Im wondering if there is not a lack of consistency in the moderating of this forum.

Jokes that appear to be over the line are removed as are blatant cursing and fairly mild personal abuse yet the thread ' a rat in my kitchen...' has numerous posts that some might find offensive in relation to guns and their use in disposing of small mammals.

any thoughts?



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MedDreamer]

What the hell is going on?

Where has the second rat post gone?

The original post gleefully talking about shooting mammals is still there in all its glory but the second post where a couple of us made fairly mild points about finding such posts distasteful seems to have been pulled? Did something develop after I had posted or is Charlton Heston moderating this forum now?

Martyn

<hr width=100% size=1>Do you think a Fleming 55 would look out of place on Windermere?

 

[jimi]

Re: What the hell is going on?

Think it was the post referring to Graham Snotring as a poofy weirdo that perhaps caused it?

<hr width=100% size=1>.. when's that again, but ..

 

[itsonlymoney]

Re: What the hell is going on?

Begining to seem like every thread I get involved in becomes somewhat controversial.

Ian



<hr width=100% size=1>Play the best game you can with the cards you've been dealt ! ! !

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I guess it's because rats are generally considered vermin and eradicating them with a shotgun does'nt seem any more cruel than a trap or poison.
As to the rat which has eaten half of our Xmas decorations in our loft, I wish it an extremely slow and painful death. Shooting it would be too kind
For the record, I know Kim has legal and commercial considerations to think about in moderating this forum, but entirely IMHO, I would defend anybody's right to say what the hell they like on this forum. If you dont like the way a thread is going, don't read it

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

everything in moderation (bit long)

i used to be one of those demanding total and utter freedom of speech and freedom from censure, and then i queried the consistency of moderation...but i have recognised the error of my ways.

Firstly, no ybw.com, no forum. If peeps want a no-holds forum, they can start their own. Kim moderates the forum on behalf of ybw, so his decision is final. he can reverese his decision if he wants.

My understanding is that the vaguely respectable standards of boaters and IPC are to be "reasonably" reflected hereabouts. But it's not that simple.

Pushed this towards its limits "moderatiing" recognises that verbiage on the forum is more ephemeral than is the printed word. Thus ribald jokes and bad taste survive here when they would not be considered for print. To a reasonable extent, I think this is fair enough.

But regarding the G Norton issue, i'm afraid even a bit of git like me was somewhat put off, and i didn't contribute. The same applied (for slightly different reasons) with the thread regarding the anti-raggie "don't they just get up your nose", although that aspect was ignored and others wisely gave advice about power leads, and it stayed.

The commmonality between the two is they overstepped the mark between valid adverse comment, and more repulsive and unjustifiable boatsim or (worse) homophobia, sexism, or racism. All of these "isms " are unacceptable in my view, almost always the thread that develop thsi way get binned, and quite right too: if a post unjustifiably ascribes the worst traits of one person of a group (gay, black, raggie) to an entire group, and incite others to think the same way.

This is the very hallmark of nazis, who did the same with Jews. Ok, it's a leap, but not actually a huge leap. Sure, some jews are infuriating, dishonest or worse - but not all them as a certain Mr Hitler and others proclaimed. G norton being crap to homophobia wasn't that big a leap either. I didn't reqally mean it, and it's not as bad as etc etc etc and CERTAINLY not as bad as the nazis. It isn't, but it's walk in the same direction.

So, imho, it's fine to say that G Norton is a rubbish entertainer. It's fine to say you can't stand him. it's fine to say that the camp humour, raving wooftahism or whatever isn't that funny after a while. But the line was crossed when ALL gays were ascribed with the same dislike, and even when some assumed that others would agree with their unjustified hatred as a matter of course.

Back to the Nazis, antisemitsm was widespread in Europe before 1933. It was not solely invented by nazis, nor too different in the uk at the same time, and is still not uncommon in 21st century Germany - an old schoolfriend now the rabbi of Berlin, Walter Rotshchild was beaten up in an underground station a month ago. But the turning point in 1933 was when the new national socialist government tacitly apprioved and then openly encouraged anti-jewish behaviour and violence, which the quite different govt of germany does not do today. Far less extreme -yet quite analagous -l were the homophobic tendencies here - a moderator letting it go tacitly "approves" the viewpoint, and hence it should go, and it did.

Now, it is most certainly the case that some raggies are tight-fisted self-centred ratbags. I certainly know a few. But this doesnot mean that all raggies have those traits, and so the "boatism" need have no place either. Note that this does not mean that you cannot have a vaguley justified "go" at the behaviour of a one or even a few.

Ratwise, I think it is fairly ok to be ratist erm, there must be a word for this...rattusphobic? There aren't just a few nasty rats and the rest sit at home and watch telly. Not totally sure about the idea of having loaded weaponry to do away with them but then i've got kids that would want a go too, and i don't much need the aggro. Also, i wd probably cause a load more damage than a rat. Also, not sure loaded woopah guns are allowed round here. But note that even the gun-toters didn't incite whosale extermination or widescale absolute anti-rat feelings. If you had a pet rat, for example, I'm fairly sure that although many would not want to pet it, even those with rat-guns wouldn't feel the need to blow it's brains out.

oh yes, clouding the whole of these issues is the fact that some of us know each other, so (with them) it's fair enuf to have a pop at scots and be horrid, provided they understnad the joke, continue to give as good as they get and don't get upset. I think it is pretty good that KH manages to sense the hideous humour in such exchanges too.

Finally, and even more complicated, are the other jokes. Some of these are indeed risqué and x-rated. Its seems peculair and perverse that censorship seems to weight the funniness of the joke - but it is quite right that this is the case. The funniness must exceed the nastiness. So, it was ok making a quite funny anti-welsh joke a year or so ago - it could have stayed, and it did, for a while. But when the jokes increased to several dozen, many of which were not funny at all, the thread simply gave expression to anti-welsh feeling, not to anything actually funny. Anne robinson making her antiwelsh comment (on natioanl tv) was similarly and singularly unfunny (although she hoped otherwise) and although a funny joke against the welsh or the scots or english is fine - an unfunny joke only carries the nastiness - it wrongheadedly assumes the point of the jokes was to incite hatred, to jeer and mock, rather than simply be funny. A joke that isn't a joke deserves to be warned against, moderated, or censured. The same spplies with Jewish, Irish, scottish, and english jokes - the overriding message of the joke must be "this'll make you laugh" and not "this will massage your bigotry".

Ahem, anyway, that's my view.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[PhilF]

I don't imagine we said anything worse about "you know who" than "you know who" says about his victims. However its Kim's club and he can do what he wants. If censorship is not our bag, there are plenty of other magazines to subscribe to. I personally find the whole thing entertaining and often amusing.

For the record I hate rats and eels (they ruin yer tackle) and think "you know who" has still outlived his welcome.

IMHO,
PhilF

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Mr Toad speaks

I must say for a blunt northerner yout a bit namby pamby about these rats. We want to know are you pro rats or not and if so if you prefer black,white or brown rats. Once thats the case we can sort out if its dirty or clean rats and then if its fat or thin rats. Personally I have some very good ratty friends but I can't stand weasels or stoats. Shoot 'em all I say .. toot .. toot!

<hr width=100% size=1>.. when's that again, but ..

 

[Blue_Blazes]

Re: everything in moderation (bit long)

Bravo, TCM, I couldn't agree more.

You're not after the "Relief Moderator" post, for when Kim has his hols, are you?

Bill.



<hr width=100% size=1>One of these days I'll have a boat that WORKS

 

[longjohnsilver]

It must be a bloody big rat, Mike, to have eaten half a Flemming 55!!!

And you must have a large attic.
<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[longjohnsilver]

Re: everything in moderation (bit long)

A bit bored tcm?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hlb]

Re: everything in moderation (bit long)

Nah. Kims given him a quick phone call. Says TCM can put things into words much better than him. I'm not convinced. Beats me that how rats are killed is anything to do with Mr Hitler though!!

<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue>No one can force me to come here.<font color=red> I'm a volunteer!!.<font color=blue>

Haydn

 

[duncan]

Re: everything in moderation (bit long)

Can't resist..............killing rats - extermination - genocide - Hitler............seems a more reasonable link than many threads on these forums.

tcm's post makes a lot of sense but Kim can normally manage to do that in a 'few' less words!
It's that time of year again for far to many people - they need to get out more.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Re: everything in moderation (bit long)

Wow, have you ever thought of a career in journalism? Personally, I dont believe that censorship is the correct way to deal with the 'ism's you mention. After all, Hitler tried and failed to rewrite history by burning any books he did'nt agree with. The trouble with censorship is that it is always subject to somebody's subjective judgement of where to draw the line and it leads to the ludicrous political correctness that has infested this country, an atmosphere in which somebody can be arrested for burning an effigy of a gypsy (but not the effigy of our Prime Minister or the US president)
Personally, I found aspects of the G Norton thread distasteful but pulling the thread wont change the homophobic attitudes of some of the contributors. The way to do that is through education and reasoned argument not through enforcement and censorship

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kimhollamby]

Hi Kevin,

Well you could be right about that but the answer is simple. There are some actions we take to keep these forums on the right side of a growing number of laws and shifting moral attitudes, so that they perform their primary function (ie a place to exchange views and info on boat related matters and to serve as virtual yacht club of sorts). But the posts are actually made on an unmoderated basis ie contrary to rumour I don't read each of the 13,000-plus posts made each month and as you know I certainly don't read them prior to them going live -- the definition of a moderated forum. So I will miss things from time to time.

I do not solely attempt to set the temperature for what is okay but also measure it from the reaction of others. I'm alerted to quite a few posts by users...I always reads those and if I feel there are matters that over-step boundaries, or in some cases look likely to stoke an unnecessary boiler (not a polite term for a forum user I must admit) then it gets dealt with.

Simple fact -- there was not a complaint about the first rat thread and I must admit I didn't read it. However, the second one, as burgundyben has confirmed, was requested to be taken down on the basis that it looked likely to provoke another gun debate. In itself that might not have been a big issue, but I generally favour the requests of the original poster. Further to that I've also taken the original rat thread offline so that I can take a look at it at my leisure. I have less trouble with gun debate as a subject than posts that openly take us into the unwelcome realm of sexual and racial discrimination but on the other hand also appreciate that some views on guns could be very offensive to the majority.

So in summary -- inconsistent, yes, sometimes, but as ever I try to maintain a balance between the aims of this forum and the people posting on it. Your feedback is welcome and the tolerance and respect of users that is demonstrated for much of the time is always appreciated.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Lynda]

Re: everything in moderation (bit long)

A very "wordy" piece, but extremely well said all the same! I have read many many threads that invariably allude to some sort of "nudge nudge" pop at "the gay thing", via the forum, I have got to know, and meet some of the members, all of which have been incredibly helpful, really decent and thoroughly nice people.

However, some of the members seem to happily post their views and jokes without a single consideration or thought that - oh heaven forbid - this forum isn't exclusively heterosexual! Yes, we're everywhere, and for the record, most of us don't like Graham either. I've been on line quite a lot, but am posting less and less because of this, I have been very tempted to reply to some, and have indeed typed replies in anger, but then risen above it and signed off instead.

I think you have a difficult job Kim, but I'm not sure it's enough, there is absolutely nothing wrong with humour about everything, lets face it, 95% of jokes are about heterosexuals, most of you guys, should you be offended by them? Of course not, anymore than I should about gay jokes, black people should be about black jokes etc, (for the record, I have the best collection of lesbian jokes you could ever hear!) the difference is ignorance, a joke is a joke is a joke, but just having a go at people purely because they're "not the same as you" is not a joke, it's not big, it's not clever, and most importantly, it hurts. Most of this kind of stuff doesn't appear to be considered "offensive". Well, take it from me Kim, and the other gay people on this site that stay firmly in the closet because of this, it is!!!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kimhollamby]

Sorry, a bit confused

You seem to be suggesting that I offer my tacit approval to humour at the expense of the gay community, which is off the mark, for what it is worth. I refer you to my post elsewhere in this thread

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Blue_Blazes]

Re: everything in moderation (bit long)

For what it's worth. I don't think that the vast majority of contributors to these forums are particularly racist, or homophobic, or anti-semitic, or anything else. Most of us can enjoy a joke for what it is, not for confirmation of some blinkered attitude to folk who are different from ourselves. I have to admit that I didn't read the Norton thread, not because of any antipathy towards gays, I just don't find him entertaining.Anyone can use "Knob" gags, but if that's the limit of someone's talent then they are pretty boring in my view.

There is an invisible line which delineates what is acceptable and what is not. Some of the best posts come close to but don't quite cross that line. Trouble is, the line is movable, it's in different places for different people. It's inevitable that someone's going to get upset sometime. At the risk of sounding like a complete **se licker, I think Kim does a great job of trying to make these forums all things to all people, an impossible task if ever there was one.

Bill.

<hr width=100% size=1>One of these days I'll have a boat that WORKS

 

[jimi]

Re: everything in moderation (bit long)

Agree completely .. I also detest Norton not because of his orientation .. that does'nt bother me a bit, but because I find his "humour" crude & offensive. If I had a guest in the house that behaved like that in front of my children, he or she would be out the door on their ear. I find it appalling he's been given a prime time contact by the BBC and resent that my licence money is helping to pay for it. I would feel the same about Bernard Manning .. or if Ozzie Osborne were offered a BBC contract. Right nae Scottish dwarf jokes or I'll cry!

<hr width=100% size=1>.. when's that again, but ..

 

[Mike21]

Re: everything in moderation (bit long)

unsure about history lesson, but get jist of post.
Didn't read G Norton post as didn't find it of any interest. Tend to agree that he's not very funny.
There appear to some fairly young forumites on-line and i would not want my kids reading some of these posts, especially those that degenerate into a slagging match.
If Kim feels these posts overstep the mark or others find them offensive then I tend to agree they should be pulled


<hr width=100% size=1>