Forum Censorship

[Bfair]

Posted below in a closed thread is Brad Batt's rules to not having a post deleted:

Tips on how not to get your thread/post deleted:

1) Discuss umpiring
2) Discuss something marginally related to umpiring
3) Don't attack or "flame" other posters or officials
4) Don't post messages about how you were attacked on another thread
5) Don't start a thread asking why another post was deleted

I AM NOT ASKING WHY ANY POST (YET ALONE COMPLETE THREAD) HAS BEEN DELETED.

THIS THREAD IS RELEVANT TO BASEBALL AS IT DISCUSSES THE RULES BY WHICH WE SHARE OUR THOUGHTS.

It is no different than umps discussing rules while off the field.

I agree with the above principles except the policy for which I have no control over when authoring a post. That policy is whether or not a post will "flame" another member of the board.

Certainly to attack someone personally, is an attack. That can be done directly, or as some may rightly understand in my saying this, through inuendo. To put an end to both level of personal attack is welcome and appropriate and certainly within the realm of the management of the forum.
To attack an idea is not inappropriate. If one disagrees with the idea or the content of a post and wishes to rebut it, then it not only should be allowed but it should be welcomed. That is what this forum is all about. The intensity of the rebuttal(s) will vary from person to person and subject to subject. This should be expected on behalf of management.

However, if one takes the time to author information and post it in a forum and it "flames" another, the author may have little control over that. Sometimes a person can be inflamed over mere opposition of the thought, and other times it is the manner of presentation that inflames someone. Furthermore, a manner that inflames one person, may not inflame another. Point being, if the content is appropriate and relevant, the author should not be responsible for the inflammation.

I must question while it is worthwhile for any umpire to post on any board when, without warning, an entire thread is deleted. Does this mean all posts did not meet the standards? Significant time and research may go into authoring a post to state exactly what you wish it to say. All should not suffer from the acts of a few. It certainly is wasted time for those who appropriately post to have their efforts deleted. I like to read the thoughts and opinions of all, as I like to think my thoughts and opinions may be considered by others. I hate to think that the management of any board would unjustly censor the thoughts of those abiding by its policies, as I can condone and support their taking action on those who do not abide by their policies. However, all should not suffer.

If and when the management feels the guidelines are not appropriately adhered to, can they not simply remove the affected words (such are "bleeped" in other media)? Why must the entire effort of the post be lost? Should we need to maintain copies of all posts? I certainly find that necessary at this point in time. (I, BTW, have had only one board ever delete or censor my posts). Will you provide copies the authors or their posts after you have deleted them? Perhaps if the posts are not becoming this board they can then be posted elsewhere. That could be positive advertising for eUmpire, if in fact, these are poor and unworthy posts. The trash can go elsewhere.

I agree with your right to set your own standards and maintain them, however, I question if in the past bias has not existed in the application of your standards. Therefore, I must also question if I expect it will continue. Certainly I would expect you to disagree and acknowledge that my opinion may differ from that of yours and others, but with many agreeing with both of us.

Again, I wish not to break your rules but rather to understand and discuss them. I WILL retain a copy of this and all posts put on eUmpire (and recommend others do so with their own) as I have no knowledge when it may be deleted. That way, it can always be posted elsewhere to allow others to judge whether you maintain your standards fairly.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

[Edited by Bfair on Feb 21st, 2001 at 03:15 PM]

[Tim C]

Steve your point is well taken.

I hate any type of censorship but the worst kind is for expediance.

Not all post flame the same people . . . all of us get our butts ignited at times . . . it is a sophomoric style but it is an accepted style.

When a person posts to this board with the attitude of "I am an authority" and ther is a weakness in the argument then questions should be asked of that poster.

This is the issue that normally leads to the increased flaming. We, the unwashed masses, are simply expected to accept as authority anyone who quotes J/R or JEA. This is wrong.

Steve has hit the nail on the head . . . censorship is sinister. We also have a responsibility to be above it all.

[GarthB]

Well, before its too late:

TC wrote: This is the issue that normally leads to the increased flaming. We, the unwashed masses, are simply expected to accept as authority anyone who quotes J/R or JEA. This is wrong.

I disagree.

Questions can be asked without flaming. Questions can be asked without insulting one's heritage or nationality. Questions can asked without questioning one's intelligence, purpose or parentage.

It is not the questions of baseball thought that cause problems, it is the adjectives and other mood setting devices that get in the way.

You don't have to take anybody as an authority. Ask away.

Just make sure you're open to an answer.

GB

[Brad]

Just for clarification - the word "flame" on the Internet means to attack someone else - not whether that person be become upset about what you said.

For instance, posting something to the effect of "You are completely wrong - that is not what the rule says at all." is perfectly permissible. Posting something like, "You are a complete idiot - how can you think that? I pity your co-umpires." or something along those lines is considered an attack or "flame".

The reason for deleting the entire thread is simple - we do not have the time or resources to edit individual posts. If there is a single post on a thread that is out of line, we will address it. However, if there are many posts and overall the thread is more attacks and back-and-forth diatribes, it will be deleted.

I hope that everyone on the board understands that we have other pursuits which take our time and prevent us from being able to monitor every single post.

It's simple - stick to baseball and umpiring and things will be fine. If someone posts a message that is inappropriate, it will be deleted. If a thread goes by the wayside it will be closed or deleted. If a user is on a continual rampage, his registration and ALL his posts will be deleted.

We have a committment to our advertisers and other officiating organizations with which we are associated to maintain a certain level of decorum on our websites. The forum guidelines are well-known and reasonable.

If anyone has any questions, please let me know via email at [email protected]

Thanks,
Brad

____________________
Bradley Batt
[email protected]
Technical Director

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair
I, BTW, have had only one board ever delete or censor my posts.

I would like to clarify this sentence. Steve means to say he has had "only one OTHER board" ever delete or censor his posts. Both the Forum and eteamz OBR board have removed his posts. This is not an attack; I am simply setting the record straight.

[Tim C]

I kind of thoought Steve meant "one board (with an understanding of PLUS this board) . . . now I know what was meant.

Thanks again.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
If and when the management feels the guidelines are not appropriately adhered to, can they not simply remove the affected words (such are "bleeped" in other media)? Why must the entire effort of the post be lost? Should we need to maintain copies of all posts? I certainly find that necessary at this point in time. (I, BTW, have had only one board ever delete or censor my posts). Will you provide copies the authors or their posts after you have deleted them? Perhaps if the posts are not becoming this board they can then be posted elsewhere. That could be positive advertising for eUmpire, if in fact, these are poor and unworthy posts. The trash can go elsewhere.

Steve,

I don't expect this thread will last. If it does, I think you need to understand a couple of things about this board and its owners.

1. This is a moderated board, but the moderator apparently doesn't have the time to read every word of every post before it is posted. [The software allows for that but that feature is not enabled]

2. The moderator apparently doesn't have the time to read every word of every post even after they have been posted.

3. Censorship of inappropriate content at the "word" level becomes practically impossible after a certain number of usages of the offending words in a post. The post has to go instead.

4. Censorship of inappropriate content at the "post" level becomes practically impossible after a certain number of posts of offending material. The thread has to go instead.

5. The only reasonable arbiter of inappropriate content is the impartial arbiter. That is why the owners moderate the board, and not the editors or the staff. To suggest bias here is not being fair, Bfair. I have had MY posts censored too. Unfortunately I can no longer prove that because the threads themselves had to be lopped. I can understand why, even though it meant I lost the "work" of my own posts (I don't keep copies of all posts either).

6. Attacking the messenger will ALWAYS draw a reaction. Whether you attack the person, their "style" or their "attitude" as you perceive it from their posts. I called Moose's ideas "idiotic", which should be okay according to your ethics, yet you and the rest of EWS started flaming me for allegedly attacking Moose! Someone even complained to the moderator that I was attacking his customers. Using your logic and ethics, why should I have been held responsible for what another poster perceives?

7. The sole expressed purpose of this board is to discuss baseball officiating and baseball issues that relate to officiating. Even discussing the Forum guidelines is NOT an appropriate topic on this board. That is presumably why the moderator closed his thread reiterating those guidelines. They are NOT a topic for discussion.

Steve, I personally want this board to be a flame-free zone. If it is flames you want, McGriff's is still alive and literally "kicking". Flames and flamers have caused me to give up on 2 other boards. I don't want to see this one become a free-for-all. The rules have been there from the start. Most of the flamers have not. I applaud the owners for using whatever means are necessary to keep this board clean.

Cheers,

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Tim C
Not all post flame the same people . . . all of us get our butts ignited at times . . . it is a sophomoric style but it is an accepted style.

That's the point, Tee. It is NOT "accepted style" here, and never has been. The Forum has ALWAYS had a no flames policy.

When a person posts to this board with the attitude of "I am an authority" and ther is a weakness in the argument then questions should be asked of that poster.

This is the issue that normally leads to the increased flaming. We, the unwashed masses, are simply expected to accept as authority anyone who quotes J/R or JEA. This is wrong.

Of course "questions should be asked". That's the whole point of a DISCUSSION board. The asking and answering of questions is, together with the free expression of related ideas and opinions, what constitutes a DISCUSSION.

No-one expects you to "accept as authority anyone who quotes J/R or JEA." We DO expect you to accept as authoritative opinion J/R and JEA themselves. That's not quite the same thing, is it?

Steve has hit the nail on the head . . . censorship is sinister. We also have a responsibility to be above it all.

No, Tee, I disagree. Censorship is not sinister of and by itself, but censorship of only opposing ideas IS sinister. We live with censorship on a daily basis. Heck, you can't even watch an episode of Jerry Springer without censorship rearing its ugly head. Some censorship is essential, however. I don't want my kids hearing what some of Springer's guests spew out. I don't want them offended by what some of Springer's guests do with their person. And I don't want to post my ideas in this forum only to be flamed for having them. That is all legitimate censorship, IMHO.

I am heartened, however, that you agree that ALL posters have a responsibility to be above inappropriate behaviour in their posting. If your fellow posters agree and behave accordingly, then we will truly have a "level playing field" in this discussion forum. For too long, IMHO, only the staff writers have been expected to behave with a level of decorum, while everyone else has had almost a free reign. The fact that I rejected that, and started returning flame for flame, is the only reason I believe we are having this discussion.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 21st, 2001 at 05:08 PM]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Brad
Just for clarification - the word "flame" on the Internet means to attack someone else - not whether that person be become upset about what you said.

For instance, posting something to the effect of "You are completely wrong - that is not what the rule says at all." is perfectly permissible. Posting something like, "You are a complete idiot - how can you think that? I pity your co-umpires." or something along those lines is considered an attack or "flame".

Just for FURTHER clarification -

Saying "Joe, you are an idiot" is obviously a flame.

Saying "Joe, all your ideas are idiotic" is equally a flame.

Saying "Joe, that's an idiotic idea" is, IMHO, not a flame.

What is absent in the third example is any sort of personal pronoun. As soon as someone says "you" or "your", whatever follows MUST be personal. That is why I immediately eject participants from the diamond who start their objections with that personal pronoun; because anything that follows must be "personal". "That call sucked" is only an opinion, but "Your call sucked" is a personal criticism.

Cheers,

[Tim C]

I don't want to spar with anyone.

It is my OPINION that censorship of ANY kind is sinister.

As trite as it may seem I will fight any battle to insure that anyone can say ANYTHING.

I would support a skin-heads right to speak of digusting forms of racial hatred, or homo-phobic rap music since it will allow others to speak of important and supportive ideals.

As I am sure as many other times, we can agree to disagree.

And now back to the game of baseball.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Tim C
I don't want to spar with anyone.

It is my OPINION that censorship of ANY kind is sinister.

As trite as it may seem I will fight any battle to insure that anyone can say ANYTHING.

I would support a skin-heads right to speak of digusting forms of racial hatred, or homo-phobic rap music since it will allow others to speak of important and supportive ideals.

As I am sure as many other times, we can agree to disagree.

And now back to the game of baseball.

Point taken. You are entitled to your opinion. A2D without any problems. I don't expect to debate politics or religion here either. Baseball it is.

Cheers,

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Tim C
It is my OPINION that censorship of ANY kind is sinister.

Tee: It's a noble sentiment, well said, and one you do not hold. No one believe all censorship is sinister. Free speech has always had limitations -- and rightly so.

We can't have people going around claiming they want to assassinate the president. Screaming "Fire" at a crowded rock concert is not protected. Publishing that someone is a pederast (without proof) is libel. Disclosing confidential information about a company's patents should be subject to censorship.

Finally, you and I both know that when Brad culls words or posts or threads, that is not censorship. Censorship, of the kind you oppose, is prior restraint by the government of ideas the government (typically) doesn't approve of. I join you 100% in distaste for that activity. Like all journalists, you and I oppose such nonsense because it strikes at the very heart of our business.

But Right Sports owns the forum. If the CEO does not want any post to appear that contains the word "referee," that is his perogative and he may delete it as he chooses. He is not engaged in censorship. It's his car; he can choose the brand of gasoline that suits him.

[Ump20]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

Just for FURTHER clarification -

Saying "Joe, you are an idiot" is obviously a flame.

Saying "Joe, all your ideas are idiotic" is equally a flame.

Saying "Joe, that's an idiotic idea" is, IMHO, not a flame.

What is absent in the third example is any sort of personal pronoun. As soon as someone says "you" or "your", whatever follows MUST be personal. That is why I immediately eject participants from the diamond who start their objections with that personal pronoun; because anything that follows must be "personal". "That call sucked" is only an opinion, but "Your call sucked" is a personal criticism.

Cheers,

I am very much a proponent of free speech and I empathize with those umpires who feel their posts were unjustly exorcized from this site. I think to even begin to reach the potential of the Internet some decorum and civility has to be injected into the process even if that unfortunately means a post is deleted because it demeans another umpire. If that was your partner who was being blasted by a coach the way some of us label each other I think you'ld run his ass in a heartbeat. I know I would, and I average about an ejection a year. If we don't tolerate it from a coach why in heaven's name do we do it to each other?

I began my Internet journey toward better umpiring in early 1997. At the time I discovered McGriff's to be a challenging place to visit. As people became more comfortable there was playful needling that went on and even a thread or two that was involved in movie reviews, politics etc. At the time I posted that we should be more focused and one or two people said I should get a life.

I was quite shocked to visit after a quiet winter to find how bad the attacks had become in early 2000. Maybe we got too comfortable with the new medium. In many forums Carl and Warren are subjects of frequent criticism. Personally, I find most of what they initially write to be thought provoking. I am amazed how easily someone can get their goat ( or is it goats?) by calling them Emperor of in some other way challenging their "credentials". Someone posted recently that we don't really know how good an umpire is by the way he or she posts. I agree with that. Some may have thought long and hard about what they are going to write. We don't have the benefit of hindsight when it comes to mechanics and timing.

I know Carl no longer officiates on the field and the quality of ball in Australia has been questioned by some. I don't care whether Carl is retired in Edinburg or if Warren umpired something akin to Division I college. I can't judge them by watching them so all I have is their posts. They can be pretty brutal at times in some of their "rebuttal" posts but their advice and rules knowledge are outstanding. So how come more people are just members in name only? Maybe Carl and Warren (and others) should look how they "react" to challenges and work on being kinder and gentler i.e. not treat us as coaches.

Might I suggest an e-mail survey to all "members" to find out how often they visit with an effort to encourage them to participate. I am afraid that if we eliminate negative attacks we might be down to 2-3 posts per day. I would also ask if it is possible that a poster who has his post deleted have that returned to them via e-mail. Afterall they are the authors of posts which sometimes do have baseball content mixed into the "attacks".

I would also ask RightSports to communicate with us about the overall content and stagnancy of some of the content. I took the chance of becoming a member figuring I spend a couple hundred dollars every year on equipment, videos, and books. I realize some attention has been turned toward legal challenges but I would like to see more substantive interviews and more submissions from the various staff. Jim Simms/NY

[umpyre007]

Originally posted by Warren Willson
Just for FURTHER clarification -

Saying "Joe, you are an idiot" is obviously a flame.

Saying "Joe, all your ideas are idiotic" is equally a flame.

Saying "Joe, that's an idiotic idea" is, IMHO, not a flame.

What is absent in the third example is any sort of personal pronoun. As soon as someone says "you" or "your", whatever follows MUST be personal.

A pronoun may be absent but there ARE those that would disagree with you about example number three as they perceive that they may be "guilty by association" or possibly insinuation. This may not be a flame in your view but it might NOT be very nice in another person's view. Would it not be better to abstain completely from such potentially perceived innuendo?

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by umpyre007

A pronoun may be absent but there ARE those that would disagree with you about example number three as they perceive that they may be "guilty by association" or possibly insinuation. This may not be a flame in your view but it might NOT be very nice in another person's view. Would it not be better to abstain completely from such potentially perceived innuendo?

Look, ump, I understand the point you are making; I really do. OTOH, if we intend to moderate these discussions down to the lowest common denominator, the person for whom almost everything is a personal affront, then there simply won't BE any discussions going on at all. I am well able to ADMIT, even in a public forum such as this, that some of my ideas have at times been justifiably called "idiotic", at least from that poster's perspective. I take no personal offense at that suggestion, provided the poster also states their reasons for that opinion. I don't see why anyone else should either.

If someone simply says "That's an idiotic idea" and then offers no attempt at justification, I can agree with your analysis. That isn't a point for discussion - it's intended instead as a true "discussion ender". However, if that same poster were to add.."because, IMO, this is true and not that" NOW we have a reasonable basis for further discussion, and no sign of either a personal attack or a discussion-ending pronouncement, whether directly or by "association", "insinuation" or implication. I would hope that I always adopt the latter approach rather than the former.

It is also relevant how often you use a given descriptive adjective in relation to a particular poster's ideas or posts. If every time our poster Joe said something I came back with "Joe, that's another idiotic idea because of this or that", I could be accused of unfairly judging the bulk of Joe's posts. No-one is wrong ALL the time (not even ME)! I don't know HOW we can exclude that without pouring over every post and every sentence in every post. The moderator has already indicated that is not possible. No matter what you or I agree on as right and proper, someone else will always find something outside those parameters that is either offensive or unnecessarily restrictive. The best defense is to let the impartial arbiter, the board moderator, decide whether the repeat offender is conducting some kind of negative campaign or not, and so deal with it in his own way.

Can you see my point here, ump?

Cheers,