stevehill
16 Mar 2010, 6:02PM
Georgina
stevehill: of course it doesn't say that in the community standards, and of course LS wouldn't have been moderated for disagreeing with the writer - every day, on hundreds of threads, people are disagreeing with AT writers on Cif. It's how you say it.
Georgina: I've queried three moderation decisions in the last few weeks where I know I have breached no community standards, and my only crime has been to take a contrarian view to somebody else. And maybe that someone has been more "politically correct".
None of my emails ever received anything but an automated "we're all very busy we'll get round to you" response, but look them up if you wish (I assume you can).
I am forced to the conclusion that the faceless moderators are superimposing personal agendas onto their work and are not acting impartially but are effectively taking sides in arguments.
If you think what is happening is wholly in accordance with community standards, then the standards themselves are an ass.
CiF is treating not just Lord S, but the entire community, with contempt. The respect for "free" speech is just risible: the very name CiF is considered by many to be wholly satirical.
And there's only one way your organisation is headed once you become widely known for treating your own forum members contemptuously.
Has happened three times to me, no explanation, and no reply to email query asking for explanation.
ReplyDeleteToday, I suspect Julian Glover wiped me out, or at least whoever was moderating the discussion of his piece.
Huge hypocrisy I think.