Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Censorship of threads.

Blood

MIA
Naval Commander is a flasher is the second thread, (the first relating to the Prince's serving abroad) which a moderator has intervened and either stopped the thread or curtailed any further discussion. Rum Ration as I understand it is a chat forum open to all and as long as you abide within the laid down rules, then there are no problems with discussing your point of views and reading others. I admit that most people on this site are 'like minded' and indeed in both cases agree with the moderators view, however, I am concerned with the rights people have to prevent a discussion, just because they personally disagree. I do not disagree that it is the moderators job to moderator, weeding out anything not approved within the RR rules, (and some do a great job) but surely the moderator is not to act as an outright censor, determining what can be discussed, at what time and when, solely based upon their own opinions? My concern is that this is the second time I’ve seen this, therefore are we not setting a dangerous precedence, allow moderators not only to police their forums (as they should do) but determining if a thread can or cant be discussed on the basis of their own views, without having any relevance to the rules in RR regarding the posting of threads? This is not a personal attack upon anyone or an attack on RR itself. I do really enjoy RR and the variety of viewpoints expressed, I welcome your thoughts? Am I just reading too much into this?
 
Whilst we would all like our discussions here to be just like the ones we have in the pub, they are not, and in law are considered to be much the same as being printed in a newspaper, equally if any one is to be sued it is likely to be the ISP and the site owner not you, thus they are both keen to avoid that. Cases currently in court can be a minefield, the press can be very subjective in what they print so us having a discusion based on that could by reading too much into the press comment both libel the accused and predjudice the case. Thus it makes sense for all for us to be circumspect in what we say, as we would neither wish to predjudicethe case, nor cause the ISP to pull the site or for the noble owners to be sued.
 

Blood

MIA
Completely understood. Didnt realise the legal situation. It seems unbelievable, that you cannot comment on this site, regarding something which is reported by the press and media!
If you look at the threads, from HMS CORNWALL etc. RR has discussed may different items, based upon media coverage. Surely if this is the case then RR rules need to be changed to cover exactly what you have stated inorder that the ISP cannot be sued.
 

silverfox

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
In addition to that, there have been occasions where this site and its brown job equivalent have been qouted directly in the media. Whilst we are all entitled to opinions of the type you describe, they are your own. The danger here is that use of a site such as this might give them credibility or association that might be mis interpreted. There is also the issue of selected editing. If you say something in the pub there is no danger of you being misquoted, repeated out of context, or edited to turn what you actually said into something different. And leave you absolutely no course to reply.

As far as the Mods role, well if you look back you will see that there are some broad principles that apply - Persec and court cases, both Civil and military, are the main ones, and the rules are applied across the board and between websites. Mods are selected/volunteered by reason of experience, knowledge base etc, and believe me it can be no picnic at times.

Frustrating I know, but there do have to be some limts in order that out collective integrity amy be retained. Of course there is no reason that you cannot express an opinion, all that is asked is that you do it somewhere more appropriate, the paper's own website for example, in order that your personal view appear as just that.

I hope that this has been of some help. It is a minefield and I have tried to answer your query as genuinely as possible.
 
I think the general message is "hold your horses lads until the trial is over" which is fair enough, we can then all let rip once the outcome is known, whether that outburst is to be directed at the media or the defendant will become apparant at the end of the trial.
 
Blood said:
Completely understood. Didnt realise the legal situation. It seems unbelievable, that you cannot comment on this site, regarding something which is reported by the press and media!
If you look at the threads, from HMS CORNWALL etc. RR has discussed may different items, based upon media coverage. Surely if this is the case then RR rules need to be changed to cover exactly what you have stated inorder that the ISP cannot be sued.

The difference between the press and us is they have lawyers check before it goes out, in our case the lawyers check after it goes out and the damage is then done. As for changing the rules the only surefire solution is moderation where posts are checked before appearing, a route which I suspect none of us want to go down. The fundamental is that as soon as your post is able to be read by others the ISP is deemed to have 'published' it.

The simple answer is for us to be responsible and excercise some self discipline.
 

Bad CO

Admin
Thank you for those who have so eloquently explained our position - can I have permission to quote you next time this issue comes up!?
 

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
silverfox said:
Frustrating I know.... all that is asked is that you do it somewhere more appropriate, the paper's own website for example, in order that your personal views appear as just that.

I hope that this has been of some help. It is a minefield and I have tried to answer your query as genuinely as possible.

Have to say I got the hump about this initially with other "Hot Topics", but I think that is an entirely acceptable standpoint, now that the situation has been made clear. I could even see myself considering the thankless task of mod, armed with that information.

Good point, well put & entirely understandable. Thank you.
 
Bad_CO said:
Thank you for those who have so eloquently explained our position - can I have permission to quote you next time this issue comes up!?

As Blobby said, your trainset, just want to see you keep it.
 

the_matelot

War Hero
Moderator
wet_blobby said:
I think the general message is "hold your horses lads until the trial is over" which is fair enough, we can then all let rip once the outcome is known, whether that outburst is to be directed at the media or the defendant will become apparant at the end of the trial.

Fcuk me, I'm actually in agreement with W_B for once.

I was the moderator who said to not discuss the case. It applies to all ongoing investigations. Do you really want to be the cause of a mis-trial due to something quoted out of context in the media? No, you dont!

After the verdict is given, I consider it a free for all as long as nothing libelous is said against anyone.
 
the_matelot said:
wet_blobby said:
I think the general message is "hold your horses lads until the trial is over" which is fair enough, we can then all let rip once the outcome is known, whether that outburst is to be directed at the media or the defendant will become apparant at the end of the trial.

Fcuk me, I'm actually in agreement with W_B for once.

I was the moderator who said to not discuss the case. It applies to all ongoing investigations. Do you really want to be the cause of a mis-trial due to something quoted out of context in the media? No, you dont!

After the verdict is given, I consider it a free for all as long as nothing libelous is said against anyone.

Dont worry about the agreement thing mate, I'm sure it wont last long... :thumright:
 
the_matelot said:
wet_blobby said:
I think the general message is "hold your horses lads until the trial is over" which is fair enough, we can then all let rip once the outcome is known, whether that outburst is to be directed at the media or the defendant will become apparant at the end of the trial.

Fcuk me, I'm actually in agreement with W_B for once.

I was the moderator who said to not discuss the case. It applies to all ongoing investigations. Do you really want to be the cause of a mis-trial due to something quoted out of context in the media? No, you dont!

After the verdict is given, I consider it a free for all as long as nothing libelous is said against anyone.

My point often has been that whilst some of us may understand the need for restraint at times there are many who do not at first sight see why, thus it is part of the moderators duty to ensure that not only does the moderation have effect, but that people do understand why moderation is being being applied, dear old Blobbs and I should not have to do the explaining.
 

silverfox

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Maxi_77 said:
the_matelot said:
wet_blobby said:
I think the general message is "hold your horses lads until the trial is over" which is fair enough, we can then all let rip once the outcome is known, whether that outburst is to be directed at the media or the defendant will become apparant at the end of the trial.

Fcuk me, I'm actually in agreement with W_B for once.

I was the moderator who said to not discuss the case. It applies to all ongoing investigations. Do you really want to be the cause of a mis-trial due to something quoted out of context in the media? No, you dont!

After the verdict is given, I consider it a free for all as long as nothing libelous is said against anyone.

My point often has been that whilst some of us may understand the need for restraint at times there are many who do not at first sight see why, thus it is part of the moderators duty to ensure that not only does the moderation have effect, but that people do understand why moderation is being being applied, dear old Blobbs and I should not have to do the explaining.

Well pardon me for being 18 minutes late....... and in any case your explanation was not complete.


So there....
 
silverfox said:
Maxi_77 said:
the_matelot said:
wet_blobby said:
I think the general message is "hold your horses lads until the trial is over" which is fair enough, we can then all let rip once the outcome is known, whether that outburst is to be directed at the media or the defendant will become apparant at the end of the trial.

Fcuk me, I'm actually in agreement with W_B for once.

I was the moderator who said to not discuss the case. It applies to all ongoing investigations. Do you really want to be the cause of a mis-trial due to something quoted out of context in the media? No, you dont!

After the verdict is given, I consider it a free for all as long as nothing libelous is said against anyone.

My point often has been that whilst some of us may understand the need for restraint at times there are many who do not at first sight see why, thus it is part of the moderators duty to ensure that not only does the moderation have effect, but that people do understand why moderation is being being applied, dear old Blobbs and I should not have to do the explaining.

Well pardon me for being 18 minutes late....... and in any case your explanation was not complete.


So there....

I am not muttering about your explanation being late, but there was not an explanation in the first instance when moderators requested moderation, and if my explanation was not complete, that is perhaps down to not having been initiated into the mystery of moderation, not that I am seeking an invite. I have equally avoided being invited to join the masons.
 
As the case in question has now completed is it not time to unlock the thread. There was never any doubt about the flashing as the Commander had already admitted this and downloading indecent photographs of children, If you believe that posts on this website are likely to affect the outcome of a trial you must have a high opinion of your self importance,It was already in the public domain via the media, there were no reporting restrictions and it wasnt Sub-judice.
 

silverfox

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Maxi_77 said:
silverfox said:
Maxi_77 said:
the_matelot said:
wet_blobby said:
I think the general message is "hold your horses lads until the trial is over" which is fair enough, we can then all let rip once the outcome is known, whether that outburst is to be directed at the media or the defendant will become apparant at the end of the trial.

Fcuk me, I'm actually in agreement with W_B for once.

I was the moderator who said to not discuss the case. It applies to all ongoing investigations. Do you really want to be the cause of a mis-trial due to something quoted out of context in the media? No, you dont!

After the verdict is given, I consider it a free for all as long as nothing libelous is said against anyone.

My point often has been that whilst some of us may understand the need for restraint at times there are many who do not at first sight see why, thus it is part of the moderators duty to ensure that not only does the moderation have effect, but that people do understand why moderation is being being applied, dear old Blobbs and I should not have to do the explaining.

Well pardon me for being 18 minutes late....... and in any case your explanation was not complete.


So there....

I am not muttering about your explanation being late, but there was not an explanation in the first instance when moderators requested moderation, and if my explanation was not complete, that is perhaps down to not having been initiated into the mystery of moderation, not that I am seeking an invite. I have equally avoided being invited to join the masons.


Your point is taken and would not have been necessary if I coud only have found the tongue in cheek emotithingy...


which rather spoilt the effect.............
 
lamptramp63 said:
As the case in question has now completed is it not time to unlock the thread. There was never any doubt about the flashing as the Commander had already admitted this and downloading indecent photographs of children, If you believe that posts on this website are likely to affect the outcome of a trial you must have a high opinion of your self importance,It was already in the public domain via the media, there were no reporting restrictions and it wasnt Sub-judice.

To be fair, I think we have to apply these rules generically rather than specifically, otherwise we will get our knickers in a twist. The very responsible persons of the press do read these sites, and do quote from them, in cases like this an innapropriate comment from some one here can be safely printed in many cases by the press as fair comment on already public information. When you post here it is putting what you say in the public domain just as much as if it was on the front page of the scum. once printed it may well be deemed to be a cause of predjudice or libel, and it is us what gets the pain not the cunning paper. I am noit taking this position because I like moderation or censorship, rather it is because I like this site and want it to continue. Taking ones freedom in these cases too far can result in less freedom in the future. Do you for example want to see a situation where we are obliged to have full moderation where every post has to be seen by a moderator before it can be seen by all? I don't so take it easy and keep it buttoned when asked.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Acryph How to turn off swear censorship? Site Issues 2
trelawney126 EU Censorship Cyberspace Proposal Bloody Computers 2
F Censorship on RR The Gash Barge 38
clanky MOD censorship of gay Ganges Norman Arthur iPod The Quarterdeck 7
B Censorship The Quarterdeck 39
B Navy News and censorship The Gash Barge 31
AfterSSE Censorship Diamond Lil's 3
AfterSSE Censorship or good sense Current Affairs 2
A I like how there are 3 recent threads for the exact same thing. This is beyond not using the search box. Joining the Royal Navy 19
Naval_Gazer Number of views for threads not incrementing Site Issues 5
C Eye Test (Merged Threads) The Fleet Air Arm 118
Stirling Current Affairs and other serious threads. Diamond Lil's 10
F Missing threads Site Issues 3
SONAR-BENDER OLD MAN IN UNIFORM ERROR (3 threads merged) Diamond Lil's 33
frogman007 Can we have more Storming Norman threads? Current Affairs 0
BreathingOutOnTheWayUp Multiple Threads - Arctic Convoy Medals Site Issues 2
Seaweed 'History' Threads Don't Paint in 'Last 50' Site Issues 2
A how to view subscribed threads? Site Issues 3
S Germany 'Euro War' Merged Threads The Quarterdeck 83
Naval_Gazer Defence Select Committee Report, SDSR and NSS ( Merged Threads) Current Affairs 7
W Labour Party Offer To HMAF & Veterans (Merged Threads) Current Affairs 20
finknottle Pension Changes (merged threads) Current Affairs 46
soleil CDS Says BZ - Merged Threads Current Affairs 2
soleil Navy Grandees Letter (3 Merged Threads) Current Affairs 36
W Stealth Sub Hits Stealth Rock (submerged threads) Current Affairs 84
9 Recruitment Post SDSR 2010 (Merged Threads) Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 29
soleil SD(S)R Published. Merged Threads Current Affairs 37
NotmeChief Sir Norman Wisdom (Merged threads.) Current Affairs 18
soleil Telegraph 'Future of Defence' Merged Threads Current Affairs 21
G 40cdo wearing usmc threads instead of cs95? The Corps 10
A Lock my threads Diamond Lil's 12
Shinerwrightuk RN To The Rescue (Maybe) Merged Threads Current Affairs 149
soleil Pirate Threads (2 Merged) Current Affairs 29
W Latest Round of Defence Cuts (Merged Threads) Current Affairs 48
Joint_Force_Harrier Iran Detains Yachties (Merged Threads) Current Affairs 18
A CHANDLERS; CAPTURE - FREEDOM (both Chandler threads merged) Current Affairs 215
Naval_Gazer RFA Privatisation Flap (Merged Threads) Current Affairs 42
N Stephen Lord Harrison (Walt Threads Merged) The Quarterdeck 299
C RBS / Fred's Pension (3 merged threads) Current Affairs 31
NotmeChief Carrier Delay - Merged threads Current Affairs 46
trehorn How many Orafice threads?????? Royal Naval Reserve (RNR) 58
Guns Pirates - Consolidated Threads Current Affairs 114
BillyNoMates Links in Posts & Threads Bloody Computers 3
Seadog Gobbledygook (merged threads) The Quarterdeck 39
trehorn RNR Threads on RR Royal Naval Reserve (RNR) 11
dhoby_bucket PCSOs and Drowning Child (Merged Threads) Current Affairs 68
higthepig Threads where are they? Site Issues 1
Ninja_Stoker Pointless Newbies threads that should be in the Gash Barge The Gash Barge 45
PartTimePongo William and Harry - Removed threads. Current Affairs 0
A Mass postings of same on inappropriate threads by ZiskStov Site Issues 3
Similar threads


















































Top