Who's the Head Mod around here ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I suppose that could be misconstrued as a political statement, so I won't mention it again.

I miss "Texas" where deleted posts could be viewed for a short time to see/read what and why such deletion is/was made. Mods perhaps we need to bring back that section. ltes call it the "Oubliette" viewed for a week and then flushed!!
 
Where in the Australian Constitution is there any mention of "Free Speech"??

You have to remember that here in OZ we have NO rights, none ! Not ANY!!

There is NO "Bill of Rights" or anything remotely resembling one, Australia is more like a Police state than some parts of Europe that were behind the old Iron Curtain, an elected oligarchy whose only concern is their entitlements and salary.

The correct place for these discussions is here; in the lounge

Actually, we do have a very small list of defined rights:

  • The Right to Trial by Jury
  • The Right to Freedom of Religion (although, unfortunately, not freedom FROM religion)
  • Right to just compensation

Additionally, there is a right implied by our democratic process, that is
  • The Right to Freedom of Political Communication (again, sadly, not freedom from it)

That last one is pretty important, because it means there's High Court precedent which grants us the right to criticise our government.

Things here are bad. They could be a lot worse.
 
Only in certain circumstances and that right is being eroded very quickly; SPEED CAMERAS & Parking FINES are a case in point , and a constant source of irritation, even when I don't speed.
That last "right" only applies if you are not a member of a "Proscribed" organization
 
Actually, we do have a very small list of defined rights:

  • The Right to Trial by Jury
  • The Right to Freedom of Religion (although, unfortunately, not freedom FROM religion)
  • Right to just compensation

Additionally, there is a right implied by our democratic process, that is
  • The Right to Freedom of Political Communication (again, sadly, not freedom from it)

That last one is pretty important, because it means there's High Court precedent which grants us the right to criticise our government.

Things here are bad. They could be a lot worse.

Don't be misled, depending on point of view they might not be any better around here..(My neck of the woods anyway) 😀
 
Don't be misled, depending on point of view they might not be any better around here..(My neck of the woods anyway) 😀

This thread will get locked if we go any further, but don't get me wrong - I'd rather live in Australia any day. I just think our political process is horribly broken, and at the moment, there's a fairly nasty trend towards restricting our freedoms "for our own good". See: Proposed internet filter vs. opposition's proposed internet filter which is even worse.

Moondog: I'm afraid I don't follow how speed cameras infringe upon freedom of political communication? They're annoying, but you're allowed to say they're annoying all you like.

Also, no, Freedom of Political Communication has been used the other way around, too - to prevent legislating against election advertising, for instance.

On topic: I don't think Cal's moderation is unreasonable. Provided you stay away from politics (oops) free discussion is permissible - the only additional requirement is that you be polite.

Think of it this way: to lodge a legal vote, you have to fill in the form correctly, or it will be discarded as "informal". (oops, there's that politics again)

To submit a post here, it must be civil, or it will be discarded as "impolite".
 
The pointlessness of saying anything became apparent.

Yep, you can't change people. They won't get wiser so we must console ourselves thinking it could be worse. Anyway, we could make a poll for the best and worst mod of the year, prizes included. The one with least points goes to the Sin Bin. 😀
 
Ted,
Isn't free speech being free to speak? By all means, express your view but to tell others not to do the same is hypocritical.
Most mods are good but that doesn't mean all are and freedom means being able to say so.

Frank

Well, the way I see it, this is a forum set up for diyaudio. It's up to the mods to decide when diyaudio stops and harassment, insult, what have you, starts. In that sense, there's NO 'right to free speech' here. Thank god.
But you DO have free speech in the technical, diyaudio sense. You can spout any amount of tech nonsense, and nobody will 'moderate' you for it. People may attack you, and if it is on tech grounds, that's OK. If people attack you for spouting tech nonsense saying you are stupid, THEY are moderated.
Which part do you feel doesn't make sense?

jd
 
I'm Chief Monkey on Serbian DiyA ;

as I said/wrote several times there - there is no democracy ;
forum is a pub , with all good and bad things which every pub have .
closest thing to democracy is conditioned with possibility that governor(s) of forum is(are) patient enough , with plenty of time spent on forum activity .

anyway - even with some mistakes/flaws from any member , Monkeys included , I'm pretty happy if I'm not urged to pull shotgun , which every bartender is used to have .

small forums are small mess , large ones are large mess .
 
Head mod? Don't you mean ace face. See "Quadrophenia" ad nauseam


Ha! That was funny. 😀
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Freedom of speech? Sure, there is a lot of crying here for freedom of speech. My own. But let someone say something I don't like - and that freedom is so quickly forgotten. 😉 Just like in the real world. We're only human.
 
This thread will get locked if we go any further, but don't get me wrong - I'd rather live in Australia any day. I just think our political process is horribly broken, and at the moment, there's a fairly nasty trend towards restricting our freedoms "for our own good". See: Proposed internet filter vs. opposition's proposed internet filter which is even worse.

Moondog: I'm afraid I don't follow how speed cameras infringe upon freedom of political communication? They're annoying, but you're allowed to say they're annoying all you like.

Also, no, Freedom of Political Communication has been used the other way around, too - to prevent legislating against election advertising, for instance.

On topic: I don't think Cal's moderation is unreasonable. Provided you stay away from politics (oops) free discussion is permissible - the only additional requirement is that you be polite.

Think of it this way: to lodge a legal vote, you have to fill in the form correctly, or it will be discarded as "informal". (oops, there's that politics again)

To submit a post here, it must be civil, or it will be discarded as "impolite".

It is the same for most and eventually for all earthlings ....

Yep, you can't change people. They won't get wiser so we must console ourselves thinking it could be worse. Anyway, we could make a poll for the best and worst mod of the year, prizes included. The one with least points goes to the Sin Bin. 😀

guarantee my "mod" wins hands down .... 😛

Well, the way I see it, this is a forum set up for diyaudio. It's up to the mods to decide when diyaudio stops and harassment, insult, what have you, starts. In that sense, there's NO 'right to free speech' here. Thank god.
But you DO have free speech in the technical, diyaudio sense. You can spout any amount of tech nonsense, and nobody will 'moderate' you for it. People may attack you, and if it is on tech grounds, that's OK. If people attack you for spouting tech nonsense saying you are stupid, THEY are moderated.
Which part do you feel doesn't make sense?

jd

No one is advocating no moderation, it is the type of moderation that is the problem . Crossing this so called line , should first be corrected with a warning, or objectionable words should be edited, not a whole post removed or complete discussion closed IMO. To do so is not "moderating" and it changes the dynamics of the forum , leaving it cold ...
 
Last edited:
[snip]No one is advocating no moderation, it is the type of moderation that is the problem . Crossing this so called line , should first be corrected with a warning, or objectionable words should be edited, not a whole post removed or complete discussion closed IMO. To do so is not "moderating" and it changes the dynamics of the forum , leaving it cold ...

I fear that such a silky-handed approach would invite a lot of discussion and emailing. If I was a mod I'd like to have some time left for my own audio projects 😉
I've been on this forum many years, and I've seen the mod policies slowly tune in to get the best bang for the buck. I'm happy with it, but YMMV.

Edit: Do I have wishes? Yes, I'd like to see quicker mod action against those who make wild claims without substantiating them. But that's just me.

jd
 
Guys, honestly, Cal is actually the nicer one of us :sarge:

I dont understand all this, just because of a few deleted posts🙂 everyone here are still free to post 😉

I will spare Wayne, and not show the last post he had removed
But I could, and it would be clear to all that moderation was absolute just, and fair to other members
Consider that there was no further action taken
Next step would be infraction points

Please consider that we are not here to punish people
Neither are we set to "rule", as some imply
Our job is to protect the members, and prevent forum degeneration
Simple as that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.