A person has been spamming the post "PNZ Council Meeting (Oct.)". I am not sure why this person (without a name) is so disgruntled with this particular post. I have no time to continually remove his/her unsavory nonsense, so I have invoked our Blog's "comment moderation" again.
This means you can still make comments in the usual way to any posts on our Blog, but they will go through a moderation process. This in turn means your comments will not instantly appear - they will be published later.
I have no problem with robust debate, but when people make personalised attacks on others, and on top of that do not provide their own full name - their contributions will be vaporized with one single mouse click. This is known as "comment moderation".
This is not in any way an attempt to reduce freedom of speech. As editor of this Blog I take my editorial responsibilities serious and will safeguard the integrity of our NZPC Blog. We have also received comments in the form of advertisements of unrelated and objectionable material - they get nuked as well. This makes me think that I will probably keep the automated moderation switched on indefinitely.
I look forward to your comments. Cheers, Tom.
This means you can still make comments in the usual way to any posts on our Blog, but they will go through a moderation process. This in turn means your comments will not instantly appear - they will be published later.
I have no problem with robust debate, but when people make personalised attacks on others, and on top of that do not provide their own full name - their contributions will be vaporized with one single mouse click. This is known as "comment moderation".
This is not in any way an attempt to reduce freedom of speech. As editor of this Blog I take my editorial responsibilities serious and will safeguard the integrity of our NZPC Blog. We have also received comments in the form of advertisements of unrelated and objectionable material - they get nuked as well. This makes me think that I will probably keep the automated moderation switched on indefinitely.
I look forward to your comments. Cheers, Tom.
18 comments:
Please excuse my ignorance as there may well be protocols that I am unaware of but this 'comment moderation' facility appears to be just another name for censorship. Obviously I am not aware of the contents of the 'spam' but I feel it is safe to assume that the editor of this blogsite either does not agree with it or is upset by it. Is this a democratic process? Does it follow the stated policy on the blog of the editor not interfering with the content? Am I allowed to make decisions as to what I perceive to be irrelevant, offensive or just frivolous.There have been times when I have thoroughly disagreed with postings or judged them to be inane. However I also fully encourage and want to protect the right to freedom of speech and difference of opinion. This right has potentially been taken away if the editor deems that my comments need moderating.I have used the blog and associated wiki when I have felt the desire to do so or needed announcements made in regard to petanque. I have used this vehicle because I supported the right to rigorous debate, if not one sided at times. If this blog/wiki is going to be moderated then it runs the risk of becoming a vehicle for only those who have opinions and are sympathetic to the cause of the blog editor.Unless the spam contains personal threats or insults then I say ' publish and be damned' Dirk.
Dirk, you say: "If this blog/wiki is going to be moderated then it runs the risk of becoming a vehicle for only those who have opinions and are sympathetic to the cause of the blog editor." Nothing is further from the truth. When people start attacking other individuals and do not provide their own name, their contributions will not get onto this Blog. As an educator you would know that a free-for-all can and probably will lead to chaos.
Moderation is all around us. You cannot send a contact form from a website without completing your contact details. You cannot write a letter to a newspaper editor intended for publication without providing your identity - the list goes on. In short, if you provide your full name with a comment it will be published. I do not require a name if the person just wants to congratulate another person or team. It's all just commonsense. -Tom van B.
Dirk, you say:
"but I feel it is safe to assume that the editor of this blogsite either does not agree with it or is upset by it."
Dirk, on what grounds is it safe to assume this ?.
"Is this a democratic process? Does it follow the stated policy on the blog of the editor not interfering with the content?"
Dirk, may I just remind you of the NZPC and PNZ Blog policies:
NZPC BLOG POLICY
As editor of this Blog I allow anonymous comments. However, it is always good to sign off with your name.
I will not take on a dictatorial stance and ban or sanitise content (unless it is clearly objectionable).
PNZ BLOG POLICY
Official Petanque New Zealand blog. We welcome comments to any of the blog postings. However all comments must be attributed (no anonymity). If you have any information you would like posted email the PNZ Secretary (Barbara Whittington).
-Tom.
At first I really didn't agree with Dirk's comments. But on reflection he does possibly have a point.
There is an implication in Toms original post that he's being targeted (spammed) by someone in the petanque community. Now this isn't spamming in my book anyway. Spamming is random, meaningless.
If it's personal and offensive it's not spam. It's abuse.
It can be read into your original post that someone posted something you just didn't want published, or contradictory to your oponions.
I remember once in the past you allowed several random posting by some disgruntled person. Then you applied moderation to posts from them. We all had an idea of what type of abuse was being posted.
If it's defamotory or just derogatory you can always remove names. But it gives us some confidence in your moderation.
I trust your judgement on this Tom, but remember it can be worth giving readers a taste, so they understand why you applied moderation.
Michael
The essence is this, if you make a comment to a post that is possibly controversial, you should put your name with it.
Yes, I will consider putting samples of bad behaviour up. I would like it noted here that I have to date not refused a comment which had the name of the author with it. The kind of comments I have allowed would by many be regarded as "attacking individuals" and therefore unsuitable for publication. I have no problem with "robust" comments in principle, as long as the author takes ownership. I am the first person to admit that I do not get everything in life right all the time.
Unfortunately there are only a handful of people that take an active part on our Blog: me, Margret, Liz and Graeme B - no one really participates. The fact that we have hardly anyone providing input makes it especially puzzling to see some people now wound up in the "democratic process" in which they do not participate.
Spamming in my book is getting a variety of comments to a variety of different posts and written in the same confrontational style without the authors name. -Tom.
PS. Is that Michael E. or Michael R.?
I have just (13:10) received another Spam comment. It talks in riddles and the author has not provided his/her name. As editor I would be happy to publish this with the authors name. The reason this person wants to stay anonymous is because if it was published this person would be shown for what he or she really is - a very dumb and stupid person.
Contact me if anyone would like to receive a copy of the nonsensical garbage. -Tom.
Wow... I am wondering if anyone is working out there. I have forwarded the "Spam comment" to 11 people within an hour!!! .
Please forward your copy on to others so we can all see what is going on here. -Tom.
As a very vocal person, I have always appreciated the opportunity to express my views on this blog. I have strong opinions about fairness, truthfulness and sportsmanship. Some agree with my opinions, many don't. That is the great thing about living in a democracy. There are certain people in this organisation who are not fair, truthful or show good sportsmanship, and thats there choice to be like that. I don't respect them or trust them. But I would NOT personally abuse or humiliate them in public. There is a line that should not be crossed and the role of any editor be it of this blog, a magazine or a newspaper or any publication, is to control what is published. As the founder of this blog, Tom has the right and the obligation to remove anything that is offensive. If they don't like it, maybe they should start their own blog up and let it be a free for all. I have been accussed of all sorts of things including being a stirrer but those who choose to write anonymously are actually more of a trouble maker than I will ever be.
Tom, I think the best thing to do is compeletely ignore any comments that come into the blog in this manner. Don't even acknowldege them and these silly people will soon go away. By responding the way you are, you are drawing attention to them which is giving them excatly what they want"
Graeme Burnard.
Graeme you are right about ignoring these people. I was just so upset to receive the comments and allegations from Dirk . They ar not just opinions - they are unsubstantiated allegations. "Obviously I am not aware of the contents of the 'spam' but I feel it is safe to assume that the editor of this blogsite either does not agree with it or is upset by it" I have posted some questions to him on this Blog to give him the opportunity to backup these allegations. He is a person who has always had whatever it was, posted and published on our Blog or Wiki almost immediately. For him to even suggest to "publish and be damned" is just so completely wrong and outright stupid. -Tom.
Hi, all.
Dirk, I think your words are nicely put together, but irrelevant here and out of topic. The concern here is about anonymity in a common forum, not about freedom of speech at all. Since a freshly resigned selector, not a long time ago, had had what I qualify as a disgraceful backstabbing comments about OUR national team to the world champs, this blog editor can't be suspected of restrain of freedom of speech. Here is a place where expressions of different points of view are welcome. The concern today is about people hiding behind the curtain of anonymity to spit their venom over these pages. I believe this website should stay a space of understood freedom as long as one respect the common rules. We've been many expressing various point of view over the weeks, but as far as I can remember, a vast majority of us signed their comments at the end. Whatever you think, be proud of it. No democracy with anonymity, when you interact in a public forum. Especially if you intend to go nasty.
Nonetheless I understand the 'moderation' move from the editor, and I talked about it with Tom a few weeks ago when another (the same?) No Name spat another campaign about 'fancy footwork and gust of wind in his/her luxurious locks'. And I support a permanent "moderation filter", not to check the content of comments, but to make sure the author is identified, just to strengthen up the debate. And I don't like this place being questioned about freedom of speech when the PNZ executive is getting away with their lack of transparency and their culture of secrecy, with co-opted members and forgetfulness of the meaning of the word "Democracy". Whoever you are, No Name, you're questioning the wrong person about an interesting subject.
Now, I don't know who you are, dear No Name, but I would recommend that you seek professional advice, as it looks like a medical condition, and may be your GP will orientate you to a consultation with AA (Anonymous Anonymous).
-Seb.
PS: I hope my English is good enough for you to understand, Sir Edmond Birnard?!
As a result of releasing the Spam comments this afternoon I have received many emails and a number of phone calls from throughout the North Island. I appreciate your support - THANKS. Tom.
Hi Tom,We always see in others the traits we don’t like in ourselves. You are often critical of other people and in my opinion without good reason. I see a person who is struggling to come to terms with who he is. If you are going to publish names or make accusations make very sure of your facts. Your site is littered with this sort of material. Perhaps its time for you to reflect. David Lippard.
David, I do not understand where you are coming from, or what it is you are trying to say here. May I ask the following:
You say: "Your site is littered with this sort of material".
Why not give me and others here a number of examples of "this sort of material", with explanations of why you do not like it.
Why have you never provided your own views about any discussions within this forum before?.
If you have an issue with content on this Blog, why have you never used the NZPC complaints procedure?. -Tom van B.
Fascinating isn't it when those people with an axe to grind in the NZ petanque world need a forum for their views, they primarliy come to the this blog or the wiki to air their opinions.
Yet when the shoe is on the foot and they feel the need to protect their "reputations" - they turn on the forum which gave them a voice to their issues, whether they agreed with the majority opinion or not. And yes I'm specifically referring to the recent hoo-ha over Liz's comments about team selections and the catty comments fired from both sides of the debate.
I agree with both Graeme and Seb, this blog serves a very valid purpose in allowing issues that get swept under the carpet to be aired and discussed.
As for the matter of freedom of speech - regardless of how we wish to look things - all forums and media have some form of moderation and require a name to be attached to the comment. Remember you don't have to agree with what is being said, but you should have the balls (or is that boules?) to put your name to your comments.
-Margret
Tom doesnt post everything you send him, with or without a name. He only publishes what he wants and if he decides to he changes it.
How democratic is that? Its a waste of time, all you do is keep Tom busy doing nothing.
David
David you are incorrect and you know it. I say it again: no post or comment with a verifiable name has ever been refused or altered. Yes I have corrected names and typos. People have even requested I correct typos. Try me.
David what is it that you want? -Tom van B.
In an earlier post I suggested that Dirk may have a point with his original comment. I now retract that, there is no merit to what Dirk says.
This blog and it's moderator have been subject to a deliberate and calculated attempt to discredit it on false pretence.
I say it only reflects badly on those making the accusations against Tom and the blog. This attempt to character assasinate has no place in our sport.
It's happened once too often.
Michael Emerson
"There have been numerous occassions where I have posted comments on the blog and they have not shown up. This has been a system error (probably my own doing)and not Tom sitting there striking them off willy nilly. When this has occurred, I have re written them and emailed them to Tom and he has posted them on the blog for me. I suspect this is what has happened to others. I do not believe for one minute that Tom is guilty of the things he has been accused of. I have been away for the weekend at a very well run tournament in Hawkes Bay and cannot believe the venom that has appeared on the blog. It was Tom that gave us this facility for our use.
I am appalled at the criticism he has received and the nasty nature of it.
This also proves that he does not conduct censorship at the level he is being accused of otherwise none of these personal attacks on him would appear. He has my full support." Graeme Burnard
Post a Comment