I am extremely disappointed that the following topic was modified and locked down: http://www.banjohangout.org/forum/t...&whichpage=3

What happened to free speech? Open forums are exactly that, a place to openly discuss or view your opinion, good or bad on a subject matter. If somebody can't have an opinion about a particular topic on a forum I don't see the point of being part of it. In fact I don't find it useful to pay my players union fees to have another members opinion squashed by a moderator that I may find useful or informative in some way. The above forum topic was not a personal attack by the person to any other person or member, it was a member voicing an opinion on a sponsors services.

If this is the way things work around here I will not be renewing my union fees next year.

Doc Watson - "Somebody asked me once, how do you learn to play that good?.....You practice like the devil"

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  14:54:15      

Well if you think it is dead just wait and see what happens to this topic!!

You make a good point man.

Jason

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  15:02:56          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubz

I am extremely disappointed that the following topic was modified and locked down: http://www.banjohangout.org/forum/t...&whichpage=3

---

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  15:09:13        

You do not understand the first amendment. It protects you only from having the government infringe on your speech. This forum is privately owned and therefore you have no right to free speech here.

Diva
_____________________________________________________


RK R-80 #67 "The Black Dahlia"




www.banjoholler.com

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  15:10:42    

Free speech is a deal between the Gov and you. BHO, being privately owned, doesn't fall under constitutional law. It may be edited as the owner sees fit such as not permitting political topics, religous debates or porn.

Thank you,
"Count" Hugh


"I bent over him, and tried to find any sign of life, but in vain." -- Jonathan Harker, Dracula

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  15:12:27    

Diva, did you just stutter or did I write that?

Thank you,
"Count" Hugh


"I bent over him, and tried to find any sign of life, but in vain." -- Jonathan Harker, Dracula

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  15:13:45        

I'm glad it was locked.I excersized freedom of speech in my opinions.
A lot of folks expressed their opinions as you are,now.

What's left to say about the whole mess?

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  15:22:03            

Actually, it's unlocked again.

I'm working with the mods to try to lock FEWER threads. Just because a thread's original question has been answered doesn't mean it needs to be locked...I prefer to let them die naturally. And that's what we'll do with this thread, unless things get out of hand. I see nothing wrong with discussing a store's shipping policies on this forum.

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  15:50:44    

Excellent decision. I was going to make a comment that there is a review section where members post their experiences with various vendors anyway. My limited experience is that the vast majority of discussions in the forums about products and vendors are recommendations and not criticisms.

Axeman

If the minimum wasn't good enough...it wouldn't be the minimum.

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  15:51:23        

Ya, but my concern is the delivery policy of Domino's Pizza. What's up with that?

David Russell

www.hotbanjolicks.com

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  15:55:31  

quote:

---

What happened to free speech? Open forums are exactly that, a place to openly discuss or view your opinion, good or bad on a subject matter. If somebody can't have an opinion about a particular topic on a forum I don't see the point of being part of it. In fact I don't find it useful to pay my players union fees to have another members opinion squashed by a moderator that I may find useful or informative in some way. The above forum topic was not a personal attack by the person to any other person or member, it was a member voicing an opinion on a sponsors services.

---

Edited by - RB11 Player on 11/12/2009 15:56:54

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  16:02:23      

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoDiva

You do not understand the first amendment. It protects you only from having the government infringe on your speech. This forum is privately owned and therefore you have no right to free speech here.

---

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  16:11:15  

The rules should be the same for all and not based on your type of participation.

We are governed under the law where the .org is registered. I beleive that to be the USA.

Equal rights for patron or seller. Novel idea

Edited by - RB11 Player on 11/12/2009 16:19:37

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  16:18:52      

quote:

---

According to your theory sponsors are fair game. JD is just as much a member as you are and deserves earned respect. The same as you expect.

---

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  16:19:14    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubz

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoDiva

You do not understand the first amendment. It protects you only from having the government infringe on your speech. This forum is privately owned and therefore you have no right to free speech here.

---

First amendment? This is a global website, which reaches much further than the United States. I don't see how that applies here. Regardless, my point is that forums are useless without the ability to openly discuss the topic without it being locked down due to its negative nature/context.

Doc Watson - "Somebody asked me once, how do you learn to play that good?.....You practice like the devil"

---

Edited by - Poppy on 11/12/2009 16:25:16

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  16:25:35        

In other words, it's one thing to report that you are returning a banjo to xxx because you didn't agree that it was in "excellent slightly used condition," but another to call a seller, in that same situation, "a fraudulent sleazy cheat."

Bill

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  16:29:47    

The reason that topics are locked, from my observation on the BHO, is seldom -- if ever -- because of the initial posting. Rather, it is because of replies to the initial posting that eventually violate the rules of the BHO.

One of the skills that moderators ought to have in plentiful supply is to be a careful "listener" -- in our case, a careful reader.

Dubz raised a valid point: Why was a topic locked that was not a personal attack, but rather a voicing of opinion on a retail commercial policy?

Dubz's point was validated by Eric, who unlocked the topic. Apparently, even a moderator can make an occasional mistake.

Dubz happened to use an introductory phrase -- "What happened to free speech?" To a good listener, the legal issue of "free speech" is not a material part of Dubz's communication.

It is a purely rhetorical device to take a non-material part of an opponent's statement and try to argue against that, as if rebutting that part will negate the material points.

So, if someone wants to defend the initial decision by the moderator to lock the topic, then they should do so, and explain their reasons. It is not clear to me that anyone is actually defending and explaining the initial decision of the moderator.

Rather, the debate has turned to the question of whether a moderator on an internet forum has the right to lock a topic. Obviously, a mistake was made. Dubz raised a good point, and the BHO is better off for him having raised it.

Alex Z

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  16:34:11    

I locked the topic, The original poster had solved his problem, so I thought I would lock the topic. Nothing to do with free speech, nothing to do with anything except he got what he wanted.

"What kind of man would live in a world where there is no daring? I don't believe in taking foolish chances, but nothing can be accomplished without taking any chance at all." -- Charles Lindberg

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  16:51:45      

quote:

---

It is a purely rhetorical device to take a non-material part of an opponent's statement and try to argue against that, as if rebutting that part will negate the material points.

So, if someone wants to defend the initial decision by the moderator to lock the topic, then they should do so, and explain their reasons. It is not clear to me that anyone is actually defending and explaining the initial decision of the moderator.

Rather, the debate has turned to the question of whether a moderator on an internet forum has the right to lock a topic. Obviously, a mistake was made. Dubz raised a good point, and the BHO is better off for him having raised it.

Alex Z

---

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  17:00:49          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poppy

I locked the topic, The original poster had solved his problem, so I thought I would lock the topic.

---

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  17:21:36      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poppy

I locked the topic, The original poster had solved his problem, so I thought I would lock the topic. Nothing to do with free speech, nothing to do with anything except he got what he wanted.

---

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  17:33:30    

I changed it because why start a post asking for trouble, and if you read the way folks responded to it and the original post it was clear that it wasn't a problem but more of his opinion. If they started a post and titled it"SO and SO is pathetic" I would have 50 e-mails so fast! So why should a business be any different? I have had remails complaining abut ALOT less. Do I worry that I will step on a few toes when I make a decision, not really.
Now if you have any more questions send them in PMs. I made a decision that was changed, no big deal,

"What kind of man would live in a world where there is no daring? I don't believe in taking foolish chances, but nothing can be accomplished without taking any chance at all." -- Charles Lindberg

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  17:35:46        

Better watch it Dubz... Poppy may lock this one too!!! Good for you taking a stand against the mods. I'm totally in agreement that they're sometimes too quick to lock a topic only seemingly sometimes just to do it because they have the power.

Eric... you did the right thing by unlocking that topic. Some topics need to die a slow painful death!!!

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  17:39:33        

Poppy's right on the PM's. I try that when needing an explanation from a mod, and things get resolved without a needless run-on of often irrelevant comments.

Bill

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  17:42:34        

Dubz, did you or any of the other posters complaining about censorship on this site bother to thank Eric for unlocking the thread that you referenced in your original post? Did you see his reply above where he stated that he unlocked the thread, and was working with the moderators to have fewer locks on threads?

I cannot understand why, after Eric's reply above, people are still belly-aching about this. People are so quick to point out the negative of any service, but slow when it comes to recognizing good service, if that good service gets recognized at all.


Hey Eric, THANK YOU for unlocking that thread, and promoting an open-discussion environment here. This and everything else you do for our community here is appreciated and does not go unnoticed.

--Ken Skipper

Edited by - kjskipper on 11/12/2009 17:47:26

Posted - 11/12/2009 :  17:46:18        

quote:

---

needless run-on of often irrelevant comments

---