Far too often we see people posting comments in Incidents threads that tell other people to censor themselves, either from reporting things they know about an incident, or from speculating, because: - the jumper's family and friends might be offended; - lazy or confused reporters, child-eating lawyers and the government might be reading; - speculation is bad; wait for "the report" to come out in due course; - etc., etc.
And then the thread goes off into a tangent about whether people should or should not restrict their comments; then the moderators have to work overtime to edit-out all the noise from the signal, etc.
I propose a forum rule that any comments or requests suggesting that people censor themselves in Incident threads be considered a breach of Forum rules. We already have published guidelines in place designating what is and is not appropriate to post in an Incident thread; we don't need this constant pattern of people trying to squeeze the guidelines even tighter by arm-twisting or reproaching the rest of the community.
So you want to censor the censors - does that give you the high moral ground?
I see it as just the natural give and take of debate, with pull occurring in both directions. Some people might be dissuaded from speculating based upon the critics of that. Others might be encouraged to speculate based upon those who think ALL speculation is good, whether relevant to the particular accident or not.
So it cuts both ways. And removing one faction from the give-and-take will just allow the other side to run rampant. And in my opinion, there's already too much rampant-running going on.
There's an easy solution which can make both sides happy: Reserve Incident threads for information about the incident itself, period. Anyone that wants to speculate - take it to a parallel thread in another section and talk about it there.
For example, in the thread "182 crash 3 fatalities in Louisiana", 95% of the discussion is about wearing helmets and how to fly a cross-wind takeoff. Those are two perfectly good topics of discussion, but belong elsewhere. There is yet no evidence that either of those things were responsible for the crash or the fatalities.
But no one has the guts to enforce this simple solution which would make both camps happy...
I appreciate your thoughts - on the actual point of my OP. However, I think we're talking mostly about 2 different things, as what you're referring to is more within the scope of what the moderators of that forum already may do; and I believe I'm addressing something beyond that. My OP here was prompted by my reading yet another "careful now; restrain yourselves" post in an Incidents thread for the umpteenth time, so I'm giving voice to my thoughts about that in general.
As for: "does that give you the high moral ground? - really, now. This isn't Speaker's Corner. I know you and I disagree on a lot of politics, but can't we keep that kind of tone to that forum?
Okay, sorry if that came across as an insult. It was more to point out that censoring a censor is just more of the same, and would make you guilty of the same thing of which you complain.
I do find your posts in general to be amongst the most level-headed and logical of anyone here.
I'm also worried about the slippery slope here. If you ban posts advocating withholding information/speculation, then could that also lead to banning posts advocating that people not do other things? Like, perhaps, urging people to ratchet down the partisan insults that are common in Speaker's Corner? By having an active counter-movement to that kind of behavior, it helps suppress it and keep it at a lower level.
If we eliminate these restraining influences, and let one side run wild and unchecked, then you might as well just have a wide open unmoderated internet blog, like the old rec.skydiving forum. And I don't think anyone liked that zoo.
billvon (D 16479)
Dec 30, 2010, 4:36 PM
Post #5 of 15
Re: [Andy9o8] Telling people to self-censor in Incident threads
[In reply to]
>I propose a forum rule that any comments or requests suggesting >that people censor themselves in Incident threads be considered a breach >of Forum rules.
That's partially covered in the sticky on the top of the forum under "why your post got deleted" :
=========== . . .While we encourage people to only post firsthand or _reliable_ secondhand accounts of incidents (such as a DZO's statement) there will be people who post simple speculation. This is discouraged, but there is no rule against it. If you post "don't speculate" it may be deleted, since lengthy discussions over whether or not someone is speculating serve no purpose. If you have reason to believe someone is posting grossly incorrect or misleading information, please PM a moderator and we will check it out. =============
It's also partially covered under "what will happen when your read this forum" :
============== Skydiving is still a relatively small community, and you may someday see an incident here that involves someone you knew. Do NOT read this forum, or read threads about their injury or death, if reading such a discussion will upset you. ==========
Perhaps we can expand the first one a bit to also cover "don't post that because we might get sued."
Yeah, those people calling for just facts are full of crap. We ought to be able to assign any kind of mistakes or blame we want, regardless of the truth. And if that slanders our dead friends, well that's their tough shit. Specualtion is all good!
You've already got what you want, so I don't know why you're resurrecting this thread to complain. Speculators get away with murder, and those who call for facts are censored.
And thus, the Incidents forum is a joke.
What's wrong with telling the speculators that they should go start their own independent thread about their topic, unconnected to the fatality that made them think of it?
You want to automatically censor people who call for restraint awaiting facts? Since when did facts become a bad thing in your mind, worthy of suppressing people who ask for them? And at the same time you prefer that the speculators be let run wild. How screwed up is this pair of ideas? You've got 'em bass ackwards.
(This post was edited by JohnRich on Mar 8, 2012, 3:06 PM)
I don't know why you're resurrecting this thread to complain.
Of course you don't, because it's been censored. Whatever. The world ain't fair. You're right, I should just move on.... Read this quick, before it's
For what it's worth, I tried to speak on this earlier also. My comment in the Incident thread was censored - it wasn't even anything nasty. Then I tried to send you a private message, but you don't allow that in your profile. So next I started a new thread addressed to you in General Skydiving to get my message to you, and that too was censored.
The censors are very busy here keeping us from talking to each other.
(This post was edited by JohnRich on Mar 8, 2012, 6:35 PM)