Why the censorship on these forums?

[OffHand]

Ok, first of all I got to say I am very happy with these forums and Ubuntu.
Great help and nice to hang out here.
The only problem I have is that sometimes I think it's being moderated to heavily. Posts get locked, disappear or are being put in the backyard.
In most cases it is probably the best thing to do but there have been quite a few occasions when I had my doubts about it. What's the philosophy about modding among the forum moderators? This is a serious question, not trying to flame or troll. Thanks for your time.

[matthew]

What's the philosophy about modding among the forum moderators?These are intended to be technical support forums for Ubuntu Linux. As such, it was decided from the beginning that everything posted here should be completely safe for work, i.e. if your boss is looking over your shoulder he would believe that you are doing some research that could be reasonably construed as work related.

However, to be generous the cafe (previously called "community chat") area was created. Essentially the same logic applies, but with less stringent guidelines for posting--it is a social area for fun. We still want it to be safe for work and safe for families and kids.

People talked a lot about free speech, etc., and while it wasn't actually necessary since these forums are privately owned and have a very clear set of posting guidelines, the backyard was created for stuff that really isn't safe for work, etc.

Posts are not deleted except by the request/permission of the original poster or in especially egregious cases like posting of porn, etc. Typically offensive posts and spam are put into a section called the jail where you can peruse them if you wish.

[OffHand]

Ok, thnx for clearing that up. That makes sense.

[rjwood]

I am also of the opinion that there may be somewhat of an overly cautious handeling of thread closings.

There are two specific examples of this in the backyard. One thread I initiated titled 'here they go again--rant' and another about brain gender (can't think of the title right now). Neither one of those threads became offensive nor did they break any rules as far as I could discern. There was no warning or reason given for closing either thread. How is one to know where boundries lie if they are moved?

I am sensitive to moderators and administration personnel who need to keep order and maintain a fair minded exchange within community communications. I am also interested in allowing adults to be adults, and seeing the maturing of young people into adulthood. This only happens with a fairminded approach to moderating.

Perhaps there is something that can be done that holds the thread starter responsible for the discourse of a thread. If the thread starter is unable or unwilling to uphold their resposibility then they can be put on some sort of probation period of not being allowed to start threads until they mature. I don't know what is doable or not as I am so ignorant of this stuff. The staff here though is very creative and knowledgeable and I believe they can think of something.

Thanks for listening................RJ

[RavenOfOdin]

Ok, first of all I got to say I am very happy with these forums and Ubuntu.
Great help and nice to hang out here.
The only problem I have is that sometimes I think it's being moderated to heavily. Posts get locked, disappear or are being put in the backyard.
In most cases it is probably the best thing to do but there have been quite a few occasions when I had my doubts about it. What's the philosophy about modding among the forum moderators? This is a serious question, not trying to flame or troll. Thanks for your time.

I personally think its being done in the name of Political Correctness.

[aysiu]

I said this when I was a moderator, and I'll say it again (whether people listen or not is another thing): there's really no reason to lock a thread... ever.

If a thread gets out of hand or two people are battling it out or trolling it out, excise the offending posts and put them in the Backyard or the Jail. If the entire thread just seems inappropriate, put the thread in the Backyard.

Moderators have the power to move threads and split threads. There's no reason to close threads.

[az]

I said this when I was a moderator, and I'll say it again (whether people listen or not is another thing): there's really no reason to lock a thread... ever.

If a thread gets out of hand or two people are battling it out or trolling it out, excise the offending posts and put them in the Backyard or the Jail. If the entire thread just seems inappropriate, put the thread in the Backyard.

Moderators have the power to move threads and split threads. There's no reason to close threads.
I said that too, when I was a moderator! Although the backyard or the jail were mearly a twinkle in UG's eye at the time. (super moderator, actually, if you give a damn....)

[az]

People talked a lot about free speech, etc., and while it wasn't actually necessary since these forums are privately owned and have a very clear set of posting guidelines, the backyard was created for stuff that really isn't safe for work, etc.



I hope you mean "the backyard was not really necessary because of the posting guidelines" and not "free speech is not necessary because this is a (semi) privately owned website."

Free speech can be interpreted in a lot of ways - the important one is not that anyone has the right to be offensive, but that all ideas are welcome, so long as you can be respectful when you post them.

[henriquemaia]

I just want to add my thought on this. Everytime I come across a closed thread I also agree that there is no need to close them. Sometimes conversations can grow sane after some disturbance, because other community members CAN balance things - and this is a natural process. The closing of a thread just create a bad feeling from the participants. I know they can come here and discuss things, but it's better if things solve in a more natural way.

Also, moderators must pay attention to correctness and politeness.
I do think that we (as community) must not forget that not everyone here has the same age/social environment/and so on as we do.

Thanks for reading.

ps: I do appreciate the work of Ubuntuforums moderators. I know it's not an easy task.

[KiwiNZ]

I hope you mean "the backyard was not really necessary because of the posting guidelines" and not "free speech is not necessary because this is a (semi) privately owned website."

Free speech can be interpreted in a lot of ways - the important one is not that anyone has the right to be offensive, but that all ideas are welcome, so long as you can be respectful when you post them.

This is a privately owned Forum. It is also a Moderated Forum which is made clear when one registers.
The Forum policy is available to all and that again advises that this is a privately owned Moderated Forum.

[RavenOfOdin]

This is a privately owned Forum. It is also a Moderated Forum which is made clear when one registers.
The Forum policy is available to all and that again advises that this is a privately owned Moderated Forum.

As someone who did admin duty for more than a few boards, I can understand that there are some topics which degenerate into flame wars at the drop of a hat -- thus at those times I would not allow posts of a political or religious nature. I'm all for privately owned stuff and clear explanations of rules, but one thing I'm also with, is consistency.

As long as you're consistent in enforcing the rules, you're OK in my book. ;)

[matthew]

I hope you mean "the backyard was not really necessary because of the posting guidelines"This is the one I meant. Free speech is important. What I was saying is that it isn't on topic to discuss politics, religion, your favorite style of intimate encounter, etc. in a tech forum. One of the responsibilities we all share as freedoms are given is learning how/when using those freedoms are most appropriate. However, there is a recognition that these forums have become more than just tech support, but rather a community so in order to allow for community-related (non-techy) discussion the cafe and the backyard were created--thus enabling those reading from work to peruse safely as well as give some extra freedoms to the community.

[rjwood]

This is the one I meant. Free speech is important. What I was saying is that it isn't on topic to discuss politics, religion, your favorite style of intimate encounter, etc. in a tech forum. One of the responsibilities we all share as freedoms are given is learning how/when using those freedoms are most appropriate. However, there is a recognition that these forums have become more than just tech support, but rather a community so in order to allow for community-related (non-techy) discussion the cafe and the backyard were created--thus enabling those reading from work to peruse safely as well as give some extra freedoms to the community.

Sorry matthew, but unless people are allowed to express themselve's freely with respect and conscience without being censored, it is only the illusion of a community..:(

[az]

Sorry matthew, but unless people are allowed to express themselve's freely with respect and conscience without being censored, it is only the illusion of a community..:(
Actually, I understood the opposite. That although this is primarily a tech-support forum, conversations that fall under the non-technical categories also have a place to happen. I think Matthew's description is quite positive.

And I think the rules in place are meant to ensure that everyone is respected. And if you feel anything inapropriate happened, you can take it to the resolution center. And if you still are not satisfied, you can go to the Community Council.

[Robgould]

I personally think the forum is being moderated very well. It is one of the reasons I like it. You can find my name in suse forums, fedora forums, linux forums, access forums, vb forums, vmware forums......the point is I use a lof of forums for different things. To me this is the best. Hands down. When you log on here you pretty well know that you are in a friendly supportive place that is focused on what the forum is supposed to be about. I never go to the backyard. I have participated a time or two in some of the cafe discussions when I look for new posts and find something interesting. Those places are fine for the pople who want to go there, but I don't think a lot of people do. I might be wrong.

I don't come here to look at porn, read jokes, tell stories, or anything else except to discuss Ubuntu as an operating sustem. All the rest is distracting and detracts from that purpose. Just my opinion.

[rjwood]

Actually, I understood the opposite. That although this is primarily a tech-support forum, conversations that fall under the non-technical categories also have a place to happen. I think Matthew's description is quite positive.

And I think the rules in place are meant to ensure that everyone is respected. And if you feel anything inapropriate happened, you can take it to the resolution center. And if you still are not satisfied, you can go to the Community Council.

I agree azz. Matthew's decription is quite accurate. I am trying to define the word 'community'.

These forums have been quite good, and I love it here. There is however room and need for improvement in the area of transparency when one chooses to close threads without rhyme or reason given. At least explain what was done wrong so it can be avoided next time..

[matthew]

Sorry matthew, but unless people are allowed to express themselve's freely with respect and conscience without being censored, it is only the illusion of a community..:(If you want to get philosphical, that's not precisely true...at least not in practice anywhere I know of.

One is generally allowed to express him or herself freely with respect to conscience and without being censored only when they are expressing ideas that are within the framework of community guidelines--not just here, in anything that resembles the definition of "community."

Community

A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government.
The district or locality in which such a group lives.

A group of people having common interests: the scientific community; the international business community.
A group viewed as forming a distinct segment of society: the gay community; the community of color.

Similarity or identity: a community of interests.
Sharing, participation, and fellowship.
Society as a whole; the public.
In the United States it is within the unspoken guidelines of the community that one may criticize at will their government, but they may never threaten to do harm to its leader. Such a threat would not be protected as free speech. Even in a free society there are limits on free speech--we could certainly bring the proverbial "you can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded auditorium when no fire exists" example into play here.

Then you have places where those freedoms are admittedly more limited, either explicitly as stated in the forum guidelines, or implicitly as in my next example.

In the community in which I currently live (Morocco) it is within the understood and commonly accepted, but unspoken, guidelines that one may never criticize another person to his face unless a fight is desired (at least not someone considered locally to be a social equal or better), instead criticism must be given gently and by talking to a go-between all the while allowing the person with whom you disagree to save face. I never explicitly agreed to this, but when I moved here I chose to become a part of a community that already had this standard in place...I could either learn to communicate within it or get in a lot of fights. It is not a matter of not being able to express my true thoughts and opinions, it is a matter of learning to express those thoughts and opinions in a way that is acceptable.

I believe in Morocco they have a very firm grasp of community, although how it is lived out is far different from what I grew up with and it often feels a bit limiting to me, especially at first. I also believe these forums have a firm grasp of the concept of community, although speech here is limited in ways it is not limited elsewhere.

Yes, there is occasional censorship and with that comes great responsibility as well as occasional mistakes. We really do try to limit those mistakes and to deal with them as quickly and appropriately as a bunch of non-professional, apolitical volunteers are capable of. I outlined in my first post in this thread the guidelines the staff try to follow, you can find those guidelines in greater detail at the bottom of the forums policy page linked here (http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy).

Just so you are clear, rjwood, I like you a lot and I am posting this response feeling nothing but positive emotions and a desire to communicate and clarify, not to create tension--in fact the opposite is my goal. I don't know why the problem occurred with the closed tread but it really is being looked in to. It's just taking some time. I have come to know and trust the people in these forums; the admins, the staff and lots of community members (with over 120,000 now I can't possibly know them all). The cases in which real interaction is needed are extremely few and far between and with nearly 195,000 threads I hope people can find this believable. I have every hope and expectation that the current misunderstanding will be cleared up completely and as soon as is possible.

[rjwood]

If you want to get philosphical, that's not precisely true...at least not in practice anywhere I know of.

One is generally allowed to express him or herself freely with respect to conscience and without being censored only when they are expressing ideas that are within the framework of community guidelines--not just here, in anything that resembles the definition of "community."


In the United States it is within the unspoken guidelines of the community that one may criticize at will their government, but they may never threaten to do harm to its leader. Such a threat would not be protected as free speech. Even in a free society there are limits on free speech--we could certainly bring the proverbial "you can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded auditorium when no fire exists" example into play here.

Then you have places where those freedoms are admittedly more limited, either explicitly as stated in the forum guidelines, or implicitly as in my next example.

In the community in which I currently live (Morocco) it is within the understood and commonly accepted, but unspoken, guidelines that one may never criticize another person to his face unless a fight is desired (at least not someone considered locally to be a social equal or better), instead criticism must be given gently and by talking to a go-between all the while allowing the person with whom you disagree to save face. I never explicitly agreed to this, but when I moved here I chose to become a part of a community that already had this standard in place...I could either learn to communicate within it or get in a lot of fights. It is not a matter of not being able to express my true thoughts and opinions, it is a matter of learning to express those thoughts and opinions in a way that is acceptable.

I believe in Morocco they have a very firm grasp of community, although how it is lived out is far different from what I grew up with and it often feels a bit limiting to me, especially at first. I also believe these forums have a firm grasp of the concept of community, although speech here is limited in ways it is not limited elsewhere.

Yes, there is occasional censorship and with that comes great responsibility as well as occasional mistakes. We really do try to limit those mistakes and to deal with them as quickly and appropriately as a bunch of non-professional, apolitical volunteers are capable of. I outlined in my first post in this thread the guidelines the staff try to follow, you can find those guidelines in greater detail at the bottom of the forums policy page linked here (http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy).

Just so you are clear, rjwood, I like you a lot and I am posting this response feeling nothing but positive emotions and a desire to communicate and clarify, not to create tension--in fact the opposite is my goal. I don't know why the problem occurred with the closed tread but it really is being looked in to. It's just taking some time. I have come to know and trust the people in these forums; the admins, the staff and lots of community members (with over 120,000 now I can't possibly know them all). The cases in which real interaction is needed are extremely few and far between and with nearly 195,000 threads I hope people can find this believable. I have every hope and expectation that the current misunderstanding will be cleared up completely and as soon as is possible.

How can one argue with any of this?

Thank you for everything you have said. I believe you because as I have gotten to know you through reading of your post's. I can see you are a person with a pure heart.. Thanks matthew!!

I will be patient!!!

[sherlock-holmes]

excellent posts...
thats the true spirit of the forum and thats y there are hundreds rushing in to be a part of it...

one other thing i would like to mention is :

everyone wants respect and appreciation. thats being provided here with out regard to gender, blah, and more importantly 'geek-factor'...

[KiwiNZ]

Actually, I understood the opposite. That although this is primarily a tech-support forum, conversations that fall under the non-technical categories also have a place to happen. I think Matthew's description is quite positive.

And I think the rules in place are meant to ensure that everyone is respected. And if you feel anything inapropriate happened, you can take it to the resolution center. And if you still are not satisfied, you can go to the Community Council.

Yes there is the Resolution Centre.

However the Staff of this Forum will apply the rules and policies of Ubuntu Forums.

[Seàn1]

I keep running into threads that are useful, I need to ask a question about the last comment on there or have the solution to a problem I'd have posted (which is nice for others that stumble on the available, yet idiotically locked thread).

So who's the #$&*$ that locked this?
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=193195&page=2&highlight=speech+recognition

... and why? I don't see why one would _ever_ lock a thread in a forum, particularly a technical one like this. It doesn't make sense.

I don't recall all of the examples I've come across but I'll consider posting the URL here whenever I do. Unless this gets locked... I did say #$&*$ about a mod after all -dun dun dunn!

[matthew]

I keep running into threads that are useful, I need to ask a question about the last comment on there or have the solution to a problem I'd have posted (which is nice for others that stumble on the available, yet idiotically locked thread).

So who's the #$&*$ that locked this?
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=193195&page=2&highlight=speech+recognition

... and why? I don't see why one would _ever_ lock a thread in a forum, particularly a technical one like this. It doesn't make sense.

I don't recall all of the examples I've come across but I'll consider posting the URL here whenever I do. Unless this gets locked... I did say #$&*$ about a mod after all -dun dun dunn!That thread didn't get locked, it was in the Edgy development forum which has been closed now that Edgy is an official release and no longer in development. The threads there aren't being added to because the information in them may or may not apply to the actual release--things can and often do change quickly when a release in in the development cycle so information or advice given at that time is quite likely to be wrong later. I should add that the posts and threads in the development forums are kept as a record of what was going on during the development cycle. Some of the "we know the info in this thread absolutely still applies to the final release" threads were moved to the general forum, but we just don't have the manpower to sift through the whole lot of them to be sure one way or another.

You are better off starting a new thread in the general forum with a link to the discussion you are bouncing off of.

[Seàn1]

That thread didn't get locked, it was in the Edgy development forum which has been closed now that Edgy is an official release and no longer in development. The threads there aren't being added to because the information in them may or may not apply to the actual release--things can and often do change quickly when a release in in the development cycle so information or advice given at that time is quite likely to be wrong later. I should add that the posts and threads in the development forums are kept as a record of what was going on during the development cycle. Some of the "we know the info in this thread absolutely still applies to the final release" threads were moved to the general forum, but we just don't have the manpower to sift through the whole lot of them to be sure one way or another.

You are better off starting a new thread in the general forum with a link to the discussion you are bouncing off of.

K, for it's worth locking and closing seemed synonymous to me and still kinda' do since their sum effect seems similar, if not identical, from my vantage point. Anyhoot, that said I'm not turning a blind eye to your issue. I _do_ understand your case as moderators of a forum this gargantuan but to be clear here I didn't think it ever made sense to close / lock forums since I couldn't imagine how a discussion relevant to its title and with a title relevant to this forum is ever worthy of shutting down even if obsoleted by newer thread (titles) for new releases. It's a difference in values, and one that seems exist even between mods. I'm admitedly new to forums at all, so forgive that I may just not see the grand scheme of things that might (again, unforeseeably here) necessitate stopping people from responding to a thread. I will take your advice on just linking to old threads and starting new ones -that made a lot of sense, considering. Thanks. :)

[matthew]

K, for it's worth locking and closing seemed synonymous to me and still kinda' do since their sum effect seems similar, if not identical, from my vantage point.
I can see how that would appear to be the case. The difference here is that when a thread is locked it is done generally because there is some sort of rules violation that has taken place. In the thread in question there was nothing of this nature that happened. The thread wasn't a bad thread, it was just in an area designed to discuss a development version and help document the discussions and progress of that version's development. The area was planned/intended to be closed for discussion as soon as the final version was released for the reasons I discussed earlier (and you graciously commented that you comprehended, even if you didn't agree with them).

I guess all I'm trying to say is that in this case I don't see what happened as censorship...we aren't saying the discussion didn't happen, we aren't removing records of it or changing posts, we aren't saying, "you can't discuss this." In this instance what was being discussed (a development version of Ubuntu) ceased to exist so any discussion of it would really be moot. Topics that are similar, related, or even identical but related to the final release version are encouraged to be brought up fresh and new in the areas intended for discussion of final releases--one of the reasons for this is that some people who might be helped by the information may avoid conversations that have taken place in the development version area simply because they feel it will not apply to them.

Bottom line: we really aren't trying to bug anyone or hinder discussion nor impede the flow of information. Our actual intent was to help people find the information they need that will actually be most applicable...that's the goal anyway, and this is how we decided to try to meet it. I promise you, no frustration was intended.

(I can see the conversation I would be having if we had done this the other way... "Why the *$&^% would you allow help topics that only relate to non-existent archaic development versions to remain open for comment. I tried what this thread said to do and it messed up my installation of the current release because the information was out of date.") :)

[Seàn1]

Bottom line: we really aren't trying to bug anyone or hinder discussion nor impede the flow of information. Our actual intent was to help people find the information they need that will actually be most applicable...that's the goal anyway, and this is how we decided to try to meet it. I promise you, no frustration was intended.

(I can see the conversation I would be having if we had done this the other way... "Why the *$&^% would you allow help topics that only relate to non-existent archaic development versions to remain open for comment. I tried what this thread said to do and it messed up my installation of the current release because the information was out of date.") :)

Hahaha! Well, first off I feel bad that I could have lead an (evidently) decent moderator as yourself astray in thinking I thought this, and particularly my offered example, amounted to censorship. I admittedly paused then realised, "Oh, right the topic of this thread! Duh!" before I understood how that was implied. So, my poor netiquette understood, I wasn't directly responding to the censorship cries this thread is supposed to address as much as to the, merely obnoxious at worst mind you, functional detriment imposed on users with threads disallowed of further comment. IOW, the functionality of posting directly to that thread. (o:

Ironically, this is probably the best way of describing both my initial concern and your case to some extent. We're having a discussion. Partially, because I accidentally derailed it subtly. Now, if the thread had been closed prior this misunderstanding would have never happened. -A plus. Or at least wouldn't have been voiced on the thread in question for better or worse. -Perhaps not a plus.

However, like in my example link it seemed the discussion (as discussions do) evolved a bit. So to that end, it doesn't make sense. If this misunderstanding had never happened, (at least my) understanding of what I perceived to be the problem a.) wouldn't have changed b.) wouldn't have been posted for everyone's benefit. So closing it just seemed to hamper a pseudo-related conversation that turns out to be plenty pertinent to todays distros. Arguably, one shouldn't be confused about what's applicable to their system. Generally software versions are mentioned on closed and open threads and if the user doesn't derive the usefullness of knowing the _version_ of (K)Ubuntu, or even Linux they use the problem is a different beast. To such (inevitably) confused folks, wouldn't a closed discussion only serve to make the info more obsolete if anything? Someone posting, "This doesn't work on my Leenux" probably would prompt "What version are you using?" from someone and would render the creation of a new post somewhere unnecessary and less accessible for the user.

Anyhoot, it seems impossible to please everyone and considering the current approach makes volunteer mods day (or night) a bit easier, I'm not convinced my knee-jerk solution to the situation is better overall. I was tired that night or just being a hairbrained newbie but it wasn't obvious what happened to that thread. I recall not even realising I couldn't respond, looking everywhere -twice- for a link that lets me reply. Sadly, only when I found this thread I realised what was going on with certainty. <-Mr. Green, it's true.

While I'm not convinced (haven't seen an example of yet) that users are more apt to setup their system on obsolete advice if the thread isn't closed, I do think I understand this all much better and appreciate your taking the time to 'splain me all about it.

On topic: Since censorship is perceived by some or misunderstandings could happen, it makes sense to close / lock a thread with a brief explanation at the top that couldn't be missed. Big, red etc. People tend to assume the worst yanno'? (-; Maybe this is usually done, IDK. For instance, the only tags on the example thread I offered were "Tags: recognition, speech" and it's not going to be deduced why the thread is locked by new distro standards "(or what Ubuntu Development (Feisty Fawn) > Edgy Eft (CLOSED)" means if they happen to gander at the top. Perhaps moot for some reason, but nonetheless my observation / perspective I thought I'd share with you fine folks. Hopefully I've articulated some of my concerns better or you at least enjoyed my rambling. Otherwise, give me a holler.