What is "Censorship", What is "Editing", What Purpose does a Moderator Serve...?

[Alex]

QUOTE]Originally posted by cal godot:
Alex, if you can't take the heat, etc.

My personal acquaintances do not affect my opinions of others. It is your actions - i.e. taking upon yourself to censor my posts - that cause me to label you an a-hole.

[/QUOTE]

[Alex]

Here's what I won't do.

I won't ever switch someone's words around.

Here's what I, as moderator, may do...

I may very infrequently delete a statement from a post if it is simply a hurled insult at someone else. This happens very, very, infrequently.

The person who has been insulted has to repeat the insult to respond to it, which means the insult has now been written twice, but the response to the insult only appears once.

I call that bad math and inequitable.

I consider censorship to be something more than the deletion of a personal insult.

I don't think deleting a personal insult is censorship for the purpose of this forum. And, unlike real censorship, where the censorship is not visible, if I delete an insult from someone's post, the deletion is noted as an "edited by Alex" statement.

[SHATOUSHKA]

it is censorship. (see: censor definition)


regardless, you are allowed, per HB admin. rules,
to edit/delete posts at whim. all registered
users understand this right when electing to
post on a foreign (that is, not your own) board.

if you wanna post on a forum, by registering
you understand the moderators ability to edit/delete.
you are free to term it 'censorship' because that
is exactly what it is. however, by agreeing to
the registration process, you condone the action,
making the cry of 'censorship' redundant.

and alex....
regardless of your semantical plea against its
definition, editing a post, no matter how small,
is censorship.

huggies!

[Alex]

Censorship is commonly associated with being oppressed.

Editing/deleting an inflammatory and unnecessary comment that will turn off others because it is viscious in nature is less about censorship and more about common sense and common courtesy.

You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre if there ain't one, well you can, but there are consequences. By your "definition" of censorship, that person falsely yelling fire is being "censored" if someone puts their hand over the mouth of the person who repeatedly yells fire.

Common courtesy has it's place, and it's place is here.

[Alex]

By the way, another flaw with your position is that it completely annihilates the term moderator. ANY action taken by a moderator falls under the umbrella of censorship by the standard you have chosen.

If that is the case, then the term moderator should cease to exist.

[SHATOUSHKA]

in correct on a few counts.

#1 -- the term 'moderator' is associated with
'censorship'. i already said that.

#2 -- despite how you see it, the term
'censorship' is as plain as it gets. you can
comment that 'censorship' means blah blah blah,
it could have general overtones of 'oppression'...
but upon revealing the term 'oppression'...
your hand on the mouth that speaks is still
'oppression'.

i think that you are merely rejecting my post
because it has negative connotations.
if that is the case, fine.
i never said that being a moderator wasn't
a self-approved, militant, oppressing, censoring
postition...

i just merely stated that you are a moderator.

and in case you didn't notice (which you never do),
i stood up for you.

so stick it.

nyaaaah [img]tongue.gif[/img]