|
Post by Colin Anderton on Jan 31, 2022 11:40:07 GMT
Hi,
I am sending you this message in order to inform you that I posted a new thread yesterday (30th January)
with a perfectly polite enquiry to Paul Vanezis about his closure of the thread on censorship. It seems his only response has been to censor me, and remove my post.
I am not prepared to be part of any group that operates a "socially aware" policy of cancel culture. The backlash is coming, as more and more people wake up to the fact that free speech is under serious
threat. After all, isn't the internet all about free speech?
I am posting this message to him today, which I'm sure will also be removed. The "socially aware" mob - of which
Paul Vanezis is clearly a supporter - are never able to answer questions such as those I put to him. No,
they prefer to censor my post, and try to silence views that disagree with his sort.
Your opinions are greatly valued by me, as I accept that all views should be heard, whether you are for me or
against me.
I am signing out of this group for good. I wish you all the best, and I can only suggest joining a group
where opinions are not censored. That's the way to stand up to these internet bullies.
I hope as many of you as possible see this message - as it's sure to be removed quickly.
Paul is a perfect representative of the "socially aware" mob - hasn't got the guts to respond, just removes my post so the argument is shut down.
Over and OUT!
Colin Anderton.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Jan 31, 2022 13:29:58 GMT
Hi, I am sending you this message in order to inform you that I posted a new thread yesterday (30th January) with a perfectly polite enquiry to Paul Vanezis about his closure of the thread on censorship. It seems his only response has been to censor me, and remove my post. Hmm. Well no Colin. I didn't delete your post and in fact I haven't read it so I don't know what you said. If you are still reading this though, you may like to know that I take a hands off approach to moderating the forum. I am not the only moderator though and others may take a different view to how they moderate. But what I would say is that just because we have an open forum, doesn't mean to say that people can just say whatever they like. If people post things that are inaccurate I'll either pull them up about it or correct it in a reply. If people express extreme views that are obviously counter to common sense or the public good, I'll take action. I haven't seen any evidence of that in recent days, although I try and take a break from the forum at weekends if I can, but I note that the only thread that I have moderated in the past week is the thread that you started in The Nexus. You started it in response to a moderated thread in the radio section, not moderated by me, asking if discussion of cuts to BBC radio broadcasts can be discussed: "Can We Discuss It Here Then?". An entirely reasonable thing to discuss in The Nexus. I ultimately locked that thread and I think anyone reading it can see why. It started as a thread about cuts to radio broadcasts (due to changing attitudes to race/diversity/language/womens rights etc...) and degenerated into a debate about transgender issues. If people want to debate the pro's and cons of transgender issues they are welcome to in the off-topic section but it must be kept civil and reasoned and based on facts and not unreasoned opinions. Ultimately, be good, have a healthy debate and try not to upset people. You may write something that some people are offended by and that is OK as long as you are not being offensive. It's a fine line sometimes. Anyway, back to the point of this post; if you started a new thread directed at me about why the "Can We Discuss It Here Then?" thread had been moderated, another mod will probably have deleted it as a matter of course. Questioning mod decisions on the forum is against the forum rules. You are meant to direct those kind of questions in a private message to the mod, which you never did do. As for what you have written about me above, well I regard being described as 'socially aware' as a compliment. But as I have mentioned before on this forum, that word is mis-used by the majority of people today. It's an Americanism and an interesting adjective, being 'alert to injustice in society, especially racism'. I think anyone knowing its meaning would be happy to be described that way. That is not how you are using it. You are using it in effect as an insult, as if somehow it describes the actions you think I and the rest of the forum mods are guilty of. The first thing I would say is that you need to go away and read the rules of the forum. There is no policy of cancel culture here and if there was, it wouldn't be a socially aware one. I am certainly alert to injustice. Moderating what is said here is done for a variety of reasons. Firstly, there are legal issues that you don't have to worry about but we do. One of those is what these days constitutes hate speech. I won't bore you with the details but it should be obvious to anyone reading how we have to counter the right of people to say something with what the law says hate speech is. This is not the US even though the host of the board may be based there, so there is no right of free speech on here, certainly no UK law that protects free speech. That is reasonable to me. The second is another legal one, defamation and libel. These are trickier to deal with because often the posts affected claim something about an individual or individuals that either is fact but unsupported or is not obviously true. Those kinds of comments would have to be decided in a civil action taken out against the person who wrote it and can also affect us poor mods who haven't written the dodgy post, aren't paid to moderate, but because we take no action might somehow be found liable for allowing the naughty words to remain visible. This is a forum about missing radio and television programmes that we would like to see found. I think people forget that. So going back to your original point... and how you signed off, your "Can We Discuss It Here Then?" thread is still up, completely uncensored, simply locked because it went way off the rails. There were lots of complaints about that thread, including that it was filled with "hate speech". I didn't think it was and I left the offending comments. As for your other thread, it must have been deleted by another mod. I'll accept an apology here. Paul
|
|
|
Post by T Morgan on Jan 31, 2022 14:53:31 GMT
I can see that the previous closed thread was indeed going way off topic, so I can understand the decision to close it. Opinions about things like trans issues are bound to cause offence, and had little to do with the subject at hand. However, I do understand Colin's frustration. I do think that the language used when closing that thread (referring to members as "dicks") was inappropriate. The closing post in the Radio forum thread made no pretence at neutrality, and took a rather dismissive, patronising tone towards those of us with different opinions (akin to labelling us as dewy-eyed nostalgists).
According to an Administrator here, who privately messaged me, my posts came across as "oh my God, the cuts". I was asked to stop with them, and not post off topic. To be mischaracterised in this way is insulting. I was staying on topic in that thread. Now, if the thread shouldn't have been posted in the first place, fair enough, and I accept that, although I note that a second thread about BBC radio cuts was posted by Ed Brown and then recently deleted (no disrespect to EB). Both those threads stayed up for a while, before the continuing discussions resulted in them being closed/deleted.
For me to be told off by admin, effectively for posting on topic, comes across as rather heavy-handed, as if I'm being targeted for opinions which they don't like. I can see that in such discussions, things get off topic and rather heated. However, I've tried to stay calm and rational, as well as sticking to the topic at hand. It does leave a rather nasty taste in the mouth to have such one-sided moderation, in which personal attacks on other users are not only ignored, but added to by those running the forum. It does make me (and perhaps others) feel rather attacked. I've tried to remain respectful towards others at all times.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Jan 31, 2022 15:40:25 GMT
I can see that the previous closed thread was indeed going way off topic, so I can understand the decision to close it. Opinions about things like trans issues are bound to cause offence, and had little to do with the subject at hand. However, I do understand Colin's frustration. I do think that the language used when closing that thread (referring to members as "dicks") was inappropriate. Hmm. I chose my word carefully Theo. It was capitalised for a reason. And I didn't call anyone a dick. I said that everyone was acting like Dicks. It also made it clear to all who can read the thread, the frustration that I as a mod sometimes feel when reading through. Can people not think before they write? As for your other comments about moderation, I can't make a comment about specifics because I didn't do the moderating. However, I don't have a problem discussing cuts made to past programmes and the pros and cons of doing it. But obviously, when a point gets made over and over again it does make the thread unweildy. I thought it rather ironic that Colin singled me out as the censor in chief, despite me being responsible for reversing most of the BBC censorship of the broadcast Monty Python episodes for the recent Network Bluray release of Flying Circus. But let's not let the truth get in the way of a rant, eh! Paul
|
|
|
Post by T Morgan on Jan 31, 2022 15:50:02 GMT
OK, it's capitalised, but that is a small difference, surely. Acting like Dick Emery? And yes, you didn't call people "Dicks", but said people were acting like them. If I say "you're all acting like idiots" to a group, I won't be surprised if said group is offended. (A bit like Hitchcock and his clarification on whether he said actors were cattle, with him responding that actors should be treated like cattle!) Fair enough to close the thread, I just didn't think that comment was helpful, personally. I think the previous discussion about BBC radio cuts was probably going nowhere. I don't think I made my point over and over again, although I recognise you may not be aiming your comment at me specifically. Well, if you reversed BBC censorship, Paul, then you can't be all bad!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Jan 31, 2022 17:02:47 GMT
OK, it's capitalised, but that is a small difference, surely. Acting like Dick Emery? And yes, you didn't call people "Dicks", but said people were acting like them. If I say "you're all acting like idiots" to a group, I won't be surprised if said group is offended. (A bit like Hitchcock and his clarification on whether he said actors were cattle, with him responding that actors should be treated like cattle!) Fair enough to close the thread, I just didn't think that comment was helpful, personally. I think the previous discussion about BBC radio cuts was probably going nowhere. I don't think I made my point over and over again, although I recognise you may not be aiming your comment at me specifically. Well, if you reversed BBC censorship, Paul, then you can't be all bad! I thank you. And as I said in my reply to Colin upthread, offending someone and being offensive is sometimes a very fine line that should be trod carefully. Theo, not wishing this to be an advert for Network's Bluray release but you should really get hold of all four seasons of 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' which was released by them, a project that I researched for more than ten years. Every episode is now fully restored as much as the surviving material allows, but more importantly the censorship cuts have been fully restored so that the episodes are now back to broadcast length, two episodes even longer and with a comprehensive extras package with lots of extended sketches and some new material, plus sketches that were shot but never broadcast. Many never thought this was possible, but now you can acquire it right now. Let me know what you think of it when you do! Paul
|
|
|
Post by T Morgan on Jan 31, 2022 17:05:05 GMT
Thanks for the info. Maybe there is hope for a full uncut UK release of "Are You Being Served?".
|
|
|
Post by rebeccajansen on Jan 31, 2022 18:27:02 GMT
Well, the name-calling from the first was something I mentioned, so it started badly. I'm not an absolutist and people need to let off steam sometimes without people hitting the drama button, but while I am very much a fan of Philip K. Dick I don't feel that one applied to me. Fears of what we have no evidence to have happened, but which 'may', can easily enough spin out into something we have probably too much of these days, so it's no great loss as a 'discussion' to me.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,854
|
Post by RWels on Jan 31, 2022 21:23:21 GMT
Thanks for the info. Maybe there is hope for a full uncut UK release of "Are You Being Served?". As long as we are still "free"!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Jan 31, 2022 22:30:38 GMT
"I'm free!"
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jan 31, 2022 23:03:49 GMT
I wasn’t going to comment here but…
We’ve lost a couple of people recently, and for similar reasons. Britain is changing - although it would probably be more accurate to say that it’s being changed by a small, but influential, minority and without consulting the majority who don’t want it. However, I accept that this is almost certainly not the place to discuss/debate that, although it should not be ignored, I stand by everything I wrote in the now closed thread as to how Bill Hartnell’s alleged “old fashioned” views regarding non-white folk could be problematic for BluRay releases of his stories.
As for the mods….. Takes off tin hat and flak jacket! It’s a thankless job - and unpaid. I’ve had occasional interactions, such as asking if it was appropriate to post details of something, and I think I can say that it’s been 0% aggravation. Although we may not realise it life is a series of decisions; tea or coffee? They’re all part time with careers, families, overdrafts, mortgages, etc and when they log onto the forum and get into the Tardis console room they’re presented with data and options. They then have to make decisions - and doing nothing is a decision! Yes, when any of us visit the forum and see that nothing has changed that’s because a mod has decided not to zap something or someone. My view - looks round for a non-existent brown paper envelope full of non-consecutively numbered used fivers - is that they get far more right than wrong. I can think of places that have been moderated out of existence because of heavy-handed enforcement of petty and largely irrelevant rules. So, cut ‘em a bit of slack! I’m unsure as to whether Paul and I would necessarily vote the same way but his commitment to MEs is absolute - there’s no doubt about that!
Moving out a bit to archive TV - and radio, I’m interested, and I don’t think I’m alone, in getting the original (UK) broadcast version. That’s why things like TPTV are appreciated so much; they don’t cover the screen with text while you’re trying to watch the programme, and at the end they don’t squeeze the credits or have voiceovers to advertise what they’re showing next week. OK, in the “good old days” you sometimes got voiceovers during the end credits but it’s 100% on some channels nowadays. It’s worth noting that sometimes we can now actually get a qualitative improvement on the original, there is some classic DW where the film inserts survived and could be rescanned to show more of the image.
I think most of us here agree on more than we disagree about although there are some things where the positions are deeply entrenched but this is still somewhere I check regularly.
|
|