Candid Dialogue About Moderation

agreed to an extent. but natural death is unavoidable. the difference is a resourceful BA can exhume the body of deaths that occurred naturally, providing links on suggested reading. that can't be done with *murders* forever deleted.

which means, if missing pieces in a current discussion are to be offered, they must be re-typed. if it's believed components of the missing pieces somehow contributed to a moderators previous decision to delete a thread, one is left with the impression a deletion is likely again. the end result is: NEVER MIND. people don't deserve to know or understand completely. which is a shame.

 

So then what seems really needed is a solution/resolution that allows re-introduction of that information in an acceptable form since those information resources should not be limited to only those who are resourceful enough or knowledgeable enough to know how to do the exhumation. Searching skills do require some development time and experience. :-)

Perhaps the answer lies in a variation of the suggestion just made by @mattvandyk which involves a bit more active engagement in steering the discussion and locking of threads as a default option. But it also seems to me that we, as indviduals ought also to be more actively engaged in some of the steering/nudging that might need to be done. (Which is a very good reason for the explicit statements of what constitutes appropriate posting. One problem again though is that a small but non zero percentage of folks using the site simply don't bother to read the posting guidelines and seem a bit surprised to find there are some.)

 

Hi, I had a post disappear from the "30th Birthday - 1983 Cantillon" thread in Beer Trading Talk and Help. I'm not really upset about it, it was a throwaway comment, I guess I just want to see why it was deleted so I don't make the same mistake again. I don't see how it was against the TOS, but I may be missing something. It did have the word 'sh1t' in it (spelled the normal way) but I didn't think that was verboten. I'm guessing it was deemed to be "fluff"?

Thanks

 

This point is a point I made earlier about who gets to decide what's helpful and what's not. I feel that a mod who can delete a thread or comment because he doesn't see the value in it is highly arbitrary and unwarranted. Especially on ISO:FT but more recently through other forums. What one person deems unhelpful, another might see as helpful or informative, even if the comment or information was sarcastic in nature. As long as comments and threads aren't reported then there really should be no issue with any posting. I personally think that censoring the community is not a good way to help it grow. In fact, I spoke with a fellow member who has been inactive on this site for some time and actively trading and participating on other sites specifically because of the "communist rules" (his words). I wouldn't go that far to compare BA with communistic characteristics, but the censorship continues to increase more and more each day.

I enjoy BA and am glad to be a member of the community because there are a lot of awesome people on this site, but like @gueuzedreg said, more and more people are moving towards non participation in threads and simply engage in beermail, and/or using other sites because of the censorship. Am I saying BA is going to fall apart? Absolutely not, but the arbitrary moderation is frustrating lots of users.

 

Aside from Todd's point, I also think you need to check your understanding of the word "censorship".

As I've mentioned to others in private conversations, this is a privately held site where you

a) have an anonymous account and
b) agreed to the terms of service as a condition of participation.

The term "censorship" doesn't generally apply since censorship implies selectively altering the contents of a post or modifying its content to make it appear different than the author intended without providing any context or indication that the change has been made. Whenever I do that, I make it explicitly clear that the contents have been modified from their original form. As rare as deletions are, modifications (unless the OP specifically requests them) are even more rare.

Likewise, this isn't the only site in the world. You're plenty free to go elsewhere and say what you like or even start up your own site with your own rules. There's no "censorship" involved since that would mean you've been universally prohibited from expressing yourself across all sites. That's clearly not the case since we hold sway over exactly none of those sites.

"Moderation" is enforcing the rules of the site that, as noted above, you've agreed to abide by in order to allow your participation.

There's a distinct difference...it may seem like semantics, but understanding exactly what you're talking about is key to understanding what's going on with site moderation.

Separately, your passive-aggressive use of the term "communist rules" goes a long way to nullifying your argument. Once you start venturing down the rabbit hole that is Godwin's law (or some variant thereof), you've already lost. If you don't think we have "communist rules", why even mention that someone else does?

 

@F2brewers, censorship is altering the form or content of a person's statement or action. And that is what happens on the site. By deleting or modifying someone's comment you are precluding their statement in it's originality to be. Moderation is a form or censorship. I understand that i agreed to the rule and i follow them, i also understand the need for some moderation for when things get out of hand. But the majority of the time, there is nothing going on that deserves to be deleted or altered. It's a site about beer. As long as people are talking about beer related topics there shouldn't be an issue. Repeated posts and offensive comments are something i understand. Posts that are relevant but are "fluff" i don't.

As far as being passive agressive, you know what happens when you a-s-s-u-m-e. Infering that i hold a certain view point because i verbalize it for someone else is a logical fallacy. As i said in my previous posts i enjoy this site, and i visit it often. I was simply pointing to a relevant opinion.

Don't take my posts as an attack, i'm just stating my observations.

 

I don't feel like addressing specific posts here, but there are a few things I've thought and that others seem to be trying to express as well.

One important reason that I participate in the discussion forums on this site is that I find the threads fun–fun to read, fun to reply to–the conversation is often just enjoyable. That occasionally leads to 'jokey' posts that aren't really factually rich, but they contribute to a sense of shared enjoyment of a certain topic (generally, beer, or some specific beer, or some beer-related subject–whatever the thread is about). So I'm speaking of posts that are not immediately about 'beer', but they are tangentially related–a first-degree of separation. However, often these posts–or sometimes even entire threads–get deleted for being deemed 'off-topic' in someone's judgement. To me, this makes participating on the site less enjoyable. It makes the atmosphere feel 'uptight'. I understand the staff have a goal of keeping this as a beer forum, i.e. not allowing it to become a whatever-some-stuff-on-the-internet board. But I think there is a richer experience for users if the discussion isn't railroaded too and from facts specifically and only about beer with all of the other sights meticulously deleted. To this end, perhaps the 'lock' function can be used more readily.

Of course, no one owes me anything. I'm not entitled to have this site operate and provide exactly what I want, and I wouldn't claim such. Rather, I am expressing what I think would lead to a better user experience.

 

your definition of "censorship" is not generally accepted on internet forums, particularly from a moderation POV. that's my whole point. you have a view of things that isn't consistent with the reality of how things actually work. you can accept that or not as you wish...but your view is not consistent with the standard. if you choose to muddy the definition of word, do so at your peril. our POV on this is clear.

there's no "assumption" on my part regarding the passive aggressive nature of your statement. if you've ever studied rudimentary behavioral science, it's a classic example. the lack of cognition goes hand in hand. sorry, but this is part of what i do in the real world (as opposed to the craft beer world). by stating that the other opinion (rather than your own) is "relevant", you only reinforce the point.

we're telling you how things are. that's what JR wanted in this discussion which is, IMO, well worth the time and long overdue.

again, you're free to disagree, but this is reality.

 

@mattvandyk per your comment about locking a thread vs delete, importiant info such as a resolved trade dispute is always locked vs deleted, so the community can see what happened and they can be the judge.Depending on what the thread is it might be merged with an older or similar one as well, i really dont see full threads deleted, in fact i havent seen that at all since i have been a mod, I really think you are reading into @F2brewers statements the wrong way. He has anwsered everything everyone has asked and even bought it to BM's to help people understand, which im sure he would do the same for you.This is now arguing about semantics. You are very welcome to give you opinion and we can give you ours.

 

and you've eared yourself a break. enjoy.

 

Stupidity and drunkenness aside, spirited opinion and debate is forever healthy. This place has a way of self-moderating. Most folks need to remember that Beer Advocate is a business.

 

@F2brewers, in any venue censorship is defined as how i defined it (more specifically as defined resourcefully, censorship :the force that represses ideas,impulses,and feelings,and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original,undisguised forms). I'm a little confused as to the misinterpretation of this word; there as no :"muddying" that took place on my part. My expression of the word is as defined, without interpretation. Some words are subjective but censorship is pretty black and white. Whether it is on the internet, radio, tv, or what have you, censorship is defined as altering the content or form of a statement or action, and that's the real world. Your disassociation of my viewpoint and the real world, is rather unfounded. All of my observations have been made in the "real world" and I see how internet and other media forums, presentations, and operations take place on a plethora of venues. So again, to assume that my interpretation of events is based on a theoretical, conceptual or "unreal" world is without substance. I think where we disagree (and you may disagree or agree with this) is the level of alteration or deletion and the context and value of said statement or action. I understand that the mods have an important job of prohibiting the abrasive or irrelevant actions of its users. But it becomes overbearing at times. And while i enjoy this site, sometimes it feels like whenever i read a forum or post, that there are "overlords" standing over us keeping us in line and "punishing" those that don't articulate a point or suggestion to the mods liking.

That's not to say that some posts or threads do not deserve to be deleted, but based on my observation a lot of the censorship is unwarranted because the post, while not specifically full of insightful information is still relevant and an addition to the community's personality. It is not harmful to the BA community or takes away from overall discussion and is overall inconsequential to any either side of the discussion, so i question the necessity of that particular moderation.

For example, your temporary ban of @mattvandyk, i feel, was unnecessary. His post was against your view points but it wasn't abrasive, just direct verbalization of his disapproval of your comments. This is the kind of power that i am uncomfortable with. I'm not assuming that this type of action happens frequently, but it has happened twice on this thread alone so the potential spread of action could be wide. My uncomfortability stems from the lack of a "check" on the mods. A mod can delete and alter a post of thread at his discretion without some kind of merital system to support or reject an action by the mod.

A personal opinion is that mods should serve the needs of the community. And the needs of the community stem from reports of posts or threads and moving threads to it's related subsection. If a post doesn't get reported then there is no real justification for the deletion or alteration of the post/thread. I did read a post where you (f2brewers) made a comment that requested the community stay on topic of thread, which I'm completely fine with, but if the community isn't complaining, and the mods serve to benefit the community, what is the reason for it? If the mods don't serve to benefit the community and this site exists for the benefit of the users then what is the purpose of the mods (I hope you don't take that the wrong way). Also, if the site does not serve to benefit the users, then what is the point of site?

Again, as far as the passive aggressive point, any person who references another person's point does not mean that that person advocates that point of view as his own. Like i said it's a logical fallacy. Those who verbalize the thoughts of others may do so based on the inability of that person to do so due to a plethora of reasons or they feel is relevant to the topic (such as the other person's view point was). Attributing one person's ideas to another based simply on the reiteration of another's ideas is erroneous and dangerous if you apply it to studies and wish to cite them as future references. If you have ever studied case law and human reactions and behaviors through argumentative techniques it is quite frequent that this topic comes up, and it is natural to assume that the advocate shares the viewpoint of the assertion spoken, but doing so leaves the accuser wanting due to the inability to actually attribute it to the advocate because there is no substance to back up the claim (by the accuser) that the advocate actually supports this idea. So again, be careful when you assume.

Also, I do hope you realize that your comments do come off as condescending and insulting, which a few members have picked up on in this forum. Again, not trying to attack you, just stating observations.

 

As an aside from the mainstream of this discussion, you have a rather interesting definition of censorship. Mind telling us where you found it? Last place I saw something along similar lines was in a pop-psych version of what some author thought Sigmund Freud had said about the relationship between the Id, Ego, and Super-Ego and it was applied only to things happening within a particular individual, not to the actions and motivations of an official individual officially tasked with monitoring and removing content. Thanks.

 

Back when the whole ordeal of censoring the internet was being discussed I read a small article on the different definitions of censorship here

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.html

I think the excerpt from Professor Chuck Stone is particularly relevant to the topic.

I am curious how you define censorship though.

 

I prefer the simplest definition which is basically the practice of official examination of a communication and the suppression of unacceptable parts. I prefer it because that is a definition which describes the action without embedded value judgments as to its appropriate or inappropriateness. For me bundling value judgements into the definition results in misguided argument about the action rather than a focus on the value system from which an argument is made. Censorship can be positive or negative and the focal issue for me is what are the rules followed and the justification for having them in place, i.e., what is unacceptable to the officials as the voice of the community and why.

So for example, as I pointed out in my first post in this thread, insider jokes and humor are particularly difficult areas for moderation since they are by definition exclusionary--they exclude all those who are not part of the insider group. People who argue that insider jokes are beneficial are considering only the effect of those remarks on a subset of the community. For me that is a perfectly reasonable basis for removing a remark or post that leaves those not in the know scratching their heads, drawing erroneous conclusions, or even potentially being offended enough by the remark to report it.

 

Moderation is a guiding of dialogue, not selective admittance and rejection. So when staff delete posts, they are acting as censors, not as moderators.

Fine, censorship can serve a need [edit: and it's not always repressive], but let's not confuse ourselves about what's happening.