Political comments on the Binoculars and Spotting Scopes forum (1 Viewer)

[has530]

So should we apply that sports club analogy when somebody posts a reply in a specific discussion , that deviates from the specific OP? If somebody is asking questions when the discussion is about coatings, and somebody responds about how heavy some binoculars are (things like this happen almost every day) should that be deleted or censored somehow. And who would be the person or group of persons that would be the arbiter of when something crosses that line needs to be deleted?

That right there is a classic example of order of magnitude false equivalency. "People make off topic comments about binoculars in the binocular forums therefore I can insert my political jabs and if anyone complains I am being censored". There is a line and that is the whole reason to have community guidelines and the people who decide and enforce the line are moderators. That's not to say content moderation is easy but it is an important part of media.

That’s very similar to the science that the vaccine will prevent getting and spreading the CHYNA virus

Hmm , so now we should censor not only differing opinions , but facts as well because you believe it’s conspiratorial. I guess its a conspiracy that CA has a homeless problem, out of control wildfires and rolling blackouts.

I am curious how you think either of these comments is on topic, constructive, or appropriate. Also although I do not want to engage I do not feel right allowing misinformation to go unopposed, Covid vaccines are safe and effective (and denial of science is indeed conspiratorial). But I digress...

There is a dedicated space for people to discuss contentious topics. Stop inserting them here. This is a forum for the discussion of optics. I am sure you have plenty of on topic knowlege to contribute and if you would be able to stick to that in this space, threads like this wouldn't be necessary and we could all get back to our common passion...optics!

 

[Andy Adcock]

I should clarify that I used the term "censorship" because I suspect the issue here to involve not merely the political nature of some remarks, but distaste for their specific content.


No. The forum Guidelines say "Avoid racial, religious and political comments"... but birds fly and binoculars are used in a world full of politics involving environmental concerns, international trade, and many other factors that can't simply be proscribed subjects. And as everyone knows, all sorts of off-topic comments occur all the time, in jest or not. So enforcement will involve concern with context, motives, degree or extent, how a thread develops, etc, not straightforward at all, but involving considerable discretion.


This thread is not about the owners' rights at all, but a complaint that they aren't enforcing a rule in the precise way that some(!) members would like.


Thank you for using that word, it's just perfect for what's involved here. For me, it applies equally well to the other handful of members I was thinking of whose idiosyncrasies I find perverse, annoying, and repetitive, yet aren't political. Where is the rule I can invoke to request moderation of their posts, for my own peace of mind? I seem to be obliged to manage that myself...

Precisely so and it's at the whim of any particular moderator and their own beliefs and ideologies, if they don't like what you've said or one of the boards 'snowflakes' doesn't, for any reason, it usually gets removed.

 

[fazalmajid]

I voiced my opinion of of not wanting to register to read something in a trash newspaper.

The site archive.ph is a good way to bypass paywalls. Just edit the URL in your browser and add at the beginning of the article you want to read “https://archive.ph/“. Works for the NYT, WSJ and Nikkei, among others. Thus if the URL is Swarovski, Maker of All Things Bejeweled, Tries On a Hoodie (Published 2016) you would load https://archive.ph/https://www.nyti...f-all-things-bejeweled-tries-on-a-hoodie.html and in this case someone already asked them to archive the article so you don’t have to wait: https://archive.ph/wqsjV

 

[Ignatius]

It must be a quiet pub! Without sports & politics....what is there?

Cars, motorbikes, women, snooker, darts, food, last holiday, women, next holiday, sailing, windsurfing, scuba diving, women, photography, birdwatching, nature watching in general ... ooops ... last orders already?

 

[Ignatius]

A big problem with the "Ignore" button seems to be that most people say sensible stuff most of the time, but some people also say a fair amount of irritating or even offensive stuff. Someone who really knows their onions in things binocular but is a parochial jingoist is difficult to put on ignore because one doesn't want to miss out on their informational gems. And some arrogant know-it-alls still have deep knowledge of physics or optics maybe. Or am I seeing a problem that isn't one?

 

[pppppvvvv]

"Don't talk politics in the binocular forum" is a straightforward enough principle, no?

Is there a really any better rationale than "stay on topic or don't post here"?

As an experiment, the only other forums I know of on the internet that come anywhere close to birdforum are the Facebook groups.
For every sub forum here, you can find a corresponding Facebook group. Be it Zeiss, Swarovski, earthworms, fungi you name it. All with thousands of members.

So I joined a number, and searched for the hot political phrases we see on here.. Nothing.
Not a single mention of Trump, Biden, Sleepy Joe, Covid, brexit. No hint of any underlying, ongoing disputes, or afters! In any of the comments.

I found one post with a broken pair of binoculars and someone saying it was because they were made in China.

So it is possible to reinforce rules on a forum, have on topic content, and it has to be said, civil and high quality content.

The trouble is, if this is the place where people can get away with posting inflammatory, divisive, off topic comments, to a captive audience; and if they like "offending" or arguing with the same people, then they are going to love it here.
Then they can push the boundaries further and further until, shock, their post gets deleted, and they can start again on another thread.

 

[Binocollector]

Precisely so and it's at the whim of any particular moderator and their own beliefs and ideologies, if they don't like what you've said or one of the boards 'snowflakes' doesn't, for any reason, it usually gets removed.

You obviously never moderated any forum. That's usually not how it works. There is a hidden moderator forum where all reported posts are collected, then usually there is discussion amongst moderators what to do about certain posts or members. There is a process involved. It's not at the whim of one single moderator or his "ideologies".
At least that's how it worked in the forum where I was a moderator for some years.
The only posts that got instantly removed by a single moderator were spam posts.
This depends on the number of available moderators of course, who - and I think I've mentioned that, usually don't get paid for their work and most of the time just want to keep things running smoothly and not enforce their subjective "ideologies".

 

[Mono]

It is not about censorship it is about keeping to the subject of the thread. Folk are free to discuss the Covid Vaccine or the political positioning of American media companies but such discussions have no place in the Optics forums.

Ruffled Feathers exists for the very purpose of "off-topic" discussions, feel free to start a new thread over there.

 

[Patudo]

Someone who really knows their onions in things binocular but is a parochial jingoist is difficult to put on ignore because one doesn't want to miss out on their informational gems.

That might be true if these types actually did provide "informational gems"!

 

[dries1]

And some provide nothing, nothing at all.

 

[Maljunulo]

And some provide nothing, nothing at all.

I dare say everyone agrees with that …… the disagreement will be over which ones.

 

[dries1]

I dare say everyone agrees with that …… the disagreement will be over which ones.

I have my list which goes back years.

 

[Maljunulo]

I have my list which goes back years.

 

[Trinovid]

The site archive.ph is a good way to bypass paywalls. Just edit the URL in your browser and add at the beginning of the article you want to read “https://archive.ph/“. Works for the NYT, WSJ and Nikkei, among others. Thus if the URL is Swarovski, Maker of All Things Bejeweled, Tries On a Hoodie (Published 2016) you would load https://archive.ph/https://www.nyti...f-all-things-bejeweled-tries-on-a-hoodie.html and in this case someone already asked them to archive the article so you don’t have to wait: https://archive.ph/wqsjV

Fazal, thanks for posting this!

 

[Trinovid]

A big problem with the "Ignore" button seems to be that most people say sensible stuff most of the time, but some people also say a fair amount of irritating or even offensive stuff. Someone who really knows their onions in things binocular but is a parochial jingoist is difficult to put on ignore because one doesn't want to miss out on their informational gems. And some arrogant know-it-alls still have deep knowledge of physics or optics maybe.

Such an excellent and spot-on post. There are some posters that I’ll add to the ignore list, only to take them off a couple weeks or months later precisely because of the reasons you’ve listed here.

 

[Trinovid]

…moderators…just want to keep things running smoothly and not enforce their subjective "ideologies".

I was a mod on a forum once and this is how I ran it, even to the point of not deleting antagonistic posts if they had any on-topic material, but rather excising the inflammatory material.
Made the forum more peaceful place and even got me some messages of thanks for not deleting their positive content. No reason to throw out the grain with the chaff.

 

[Maljunulo]

I was a mod on a forum once and this is how I ran it, even to the point of not deleting antagonistic posts if they had any on-topic material, but rather excising the inflammatory material.

I have seen fora(?) where mods refuse to do that, and instead lock threads and ban members. They will sometimes delete posts, and issue a warning or a timeout.

 

[Trinovid]

I have seen fora(?) where mods refuse to do that, and instead lock threads and ban members. They will sometimes delete posts, and issue a warning or a timeout.

Having been a mod myself I’ve always thought of it as unfortunate to delete the useful parts of a post and found that I was able to change the posting habits of repeat offenders by sending a polite message explaining why the editing had occurred. Personally it was pretty relaxing and enjoyable to make the threads more peaceful and on-topic.

 

[Canip]

fora(?)

👍👏👏

 

[Sancho]

It's strange how binocular discussions can end up in the trenches, but spotting scope conversations adjourn to the club smoking room.