Freedom of Speech:

[Spiceskull]

I left CAG for many reasons, but the main one was the stifling of free speech, especially when that free speech was accompanied by a measure of responsibility. I see that things have not changed, and it seems that people who air negative views about the Pope and religion are being persecuted.

 

Isn't that what they were doing in the 16th century, isn't that what has been the problem with society for 2000 years? The smaller man bullied and harassed by the bigger powers that be? Didn't the free market principles of Thatcherism, and lately Blairism bring about a new breed of bully in the church of corporate power?

 

Of course it is, then one day a wonderful voice was heard, sticking up for the little guy, and bringing people power to bear on the bullies. In early 2006 CAG was suddenly a force to be reckoned with. And as the decade of the noughties draws to a close even the voice of CAG is finally silenced by the word of God.

 

What about those that don't believe in God? Don't they have a right to be heard? Or is there only one truth after all, and all other voices are the voices of heretics.

 

Shame on you.

[callumsgran]

Hear hear!!

I dont follow any religion but have nothing against others following theirs.

We should however be allowed to say what we like about certain persons who have done wrong whatever religion they are, wrong is wrong after all!

[Spiceskull]

And if this thread gets pulled then it shows all too clearly that CAG has sold out, and that YOU don't matter anymore. The only thing that matters to those that pull this thread is a) doing as they are told, without question and b) kowtowing to the powers that be.

 

If this thread is pulled then your only logical course of action is to leave CAG, and to go find some support from people with morals and backbone.

[Fred Bassett]

I don't know if I'm missing the point here. I have taken part in at least one of the threads that got pulled. It's always fun to be part of a lively debate. But the CAG is here primarily to help people with consumer issues. The Bear Garden is an indulgence. I can see a time where the entire Bear Garden gets pulled if it becomes too much of a drain on the resources of the site, which you could argue would be better used on the site's main purpose.

 

I'm not agreeing here with the censorship/pulling of the threads, but I can see the problem from the point of the Site Admin. Team.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[Spiceskull]

The Bear Garden is an indulgence. I can see a time where the entire Bear Garden gets pulled if it becomes too much of a drain on the resources of the site

That is a fair point Fred, and I would agree with it to a very large extent. However, the drain on resources would only be a problem if the threads in question were "pushing their luck" and "pushing the boundaries" where a point of law or the threat of action were in evidence. The drain would be a reasonable prevention in defence of the site.

 

Where threads get pulled only because they cover topics that may upset the sentiments of some, but otherwise cause no harm, then that is the censorship at issue here. After all, God has yet to be proven to be real, and therefore anyone who claims to represent God is clearly making a false claim. False claims should ALWAYS be contested, and CAG was founded upon defence of claims that can be proved, and claims that have merit.

 

Banks have historically also made false claims, just as the Pope has done, yet no-one saw fit to pull the threads and posts of those CAGgers who spoke out against those claims.

 

The Bear Garden may be an indulgence, but whilst the indulgence is granted then it must be granted equally for one and all, and without fear or favour.

[Thailand]

Well Fred,I understand what you are saying, but then we have to appreciate that free speech and topics of opposing views are taboo in the BG because of it. And it needs to be said to stop this tragic pulling of facts (under a guise of offence).

 

The offence, whilst not aimed at you, cuts both ways...only some are sticking to the facts and others are reporting 'in tears'.

 

I feel this is beyond childish where factual adult debate is concerned, and have yet to see anyone justify the clean sweep of deletions. (again not aimed at you).

 

If it cannot be policed fairly, and I appreciate the work of the team, I really do, then just get rid.... because that is better than some of the nonsense I believe to be behind some of these decisions. I get told that I am not doing good by Jesus, and I don't have the conpunction to report it. Facts are fact, and I do not give one fig who may be alarmed by them, in this setting at least.

[mightymouse_69]

The point is that certain threads were removed which didn't seem to infringe the rules. Two threads were then set up that asked for guidance, a perfectly reasonable request for a member of the site team to explain what had gone wrong - this could have been used to stop this sort of thing happening in the future. Instead, the site team decided to go to the effort of removing or closing these threads, rather than address the problem.

 

Fred, you are correct when you say that the bear garden is an indulgence - a point I touched upon in my thread. However, how do we decide what threads are deleted and which stay? The obvious answer is to have a set of rules - which CAG does have. However the problem is that these rules do not seem to be applied fairly - and because of that, some members feel that an explanation should be given as to the application of the site rules in respect to threads concerning a controversial topic.

 

An example - Tomorrow night at 9, the BBC will air a documentary into Scientology. It is an interesting topic to discuss - but is it worth me posting about it in the bear garden? Or is it the case that the thread will be deleted when a member who happens to be a Scientologist becomes offended by any criticism contained in the thread? At the moment, it seems this would be the case as threads are being deleted for apparently no reason - this is not good enough and the rules need clarifying.

[Fred Bassett]

Well Fred,I understand what you are saying, but then we have to appreciate that free speech and topics of opposing views are taboo in the BG because of it. And it needs to be said to stop this tragic pulling of facts (under a guise of offence).

 

The offence, whilst not aimed at you, cuts both ways...only some are sticking to the facts and others are reporting 'in tears'.

 

I feel this is beyond childish where factual adult debate is concerned, and have yet to see anyone justify the clean sweep of deletions. (again not aimed at you).

 

If it cannot be policed fairly, and I appreciate the work of the team, I really do, then just get rid.... because that is better than some of the nonsense I believe to be behind some of these decisions. I get told that I am not doing good by Jesus, and I don't have the conpunction to report it. Facts are fact, and I do not give one fig who may be alarmed by them, in this setting at least.

 

I appreciate all this Thailand, but I'm just thinking that somebody somewhere must be spending all of their time policing threads such as this when that person might think they have better things to do. I understand the arguments and the frustrations - I've had more than my fair share of posts deleted in my time, some of them unfairly in my view, but that's just the way it is.

 

I don't think that backing the site team into a corner and demanding very specific answers to why individual posts were pulled is helpful. I agree though that an iteration of what's acceptable and what is not might be helpful. The Stephen Fry thread was a good lively debate where one person clearly objected to the content. In my view it would have been better if that person had simply unsubscribed but in the end he/she ruined it for everybody.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[Fred Bassett]

I'm not disagreeing with anyone here to be honest, but I am trying to see the other side of it. I enjoy the bear garden as much as anyone and have made countless posts in it as well as joining in with many of the other threads. I hope that between us all, we don't do anything to jeapordise that.

 

Fred

[Spiceskull]

It seems to me that the moderators are policing the threads properly, and don't consider that "they have better things to do." After all, moderating on CAG is an honour to aspire to, and woe betide anyone who questions any action that could be deemed suppressive. After all, this sort of behaviour is totally legal, and recognised as such by the "free world" - to wit: Google's reporting of FOI requests by certain governments, with the exception of China, who considers that even the reporting of a the request is a crime against state security.

 

Or closer to home we have court injunctions in defence of personal privacy, and even the fact that the injunction exists is considered a state secret, and exempt from confirmation or explanation.

 

No, the forum has rules, and the mods have the power of post removal " as an educational tool to improve understanding of the forum rules." What sort of cobblers is an explanation such as that when a simple question is asked? Did doubleplusungood just enter our vocabulary again?

[locutus]

Having seen a few threads (and starting one myself) asking why it's called the BEAR garden, not the BEER garden, I was told that the BEAR garden is a place where traditionally legal minds got together to wrestle with the tough decisions and topics of the day.

 

I personally have taken part in all of the recent threads that have been deleted that held views on Roman Catholics and The Pope. I feel strongly about the subject. I have also tried not to offend anyone, but if my view offends, then so be it.

 

I'm not going to take a hard line as some are and say "If CAG doesn't let us talk about these subjects, I'm leaving!" but it does make you think maybe CAG is losing some of it's backbone, and therefor should we talk about DCA harassment? or suicides from people who couldn't cope with debt? These subjects could be seen as inflammatory and biased against the debt collection industries, and would CAG then defend our right to discuss them?

 

Hmm... lets see how things pan out eh?

[Fred Bassett]

Like I said Spiceskull, I don't disagree. You have to consider though that the moderators are among the more experienced people on the site. Ultimately it is probably preferable that they spend more of their (volunteered) time giving help and advice to people with consumer issues than refereeing spats on threads about the Pope.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Fred Bassett

[Thailand]

Fred, I know what you are saying, again, it's common sense... You may be surprised to know the same effort I have put into showing the same understanding. I have, not here obviously, gone somewhat overboard in defending the ST. Why?, because I feel that many ST don't have a choice but to support a decision. That's to be understood, it's tantamount to 'camaraderie'.

 

But, with my POV or bias in mind, I don't agree with these decisions, and whilst I see your thinking it is not justified without good reason. I will never tolerate an emotion or sympathy of an individual here over a fact, loosly put. Well, each situation to itself. This one is tragic.

 

Site team into a corner? Who? They will do what they want, what they feel is right, what they agree is right, wrong, and so on and so on... but to remove one's feelings due to anothers is subjective. I have been told what Jesus thinks of me.. I did not complain! Offensive and *insert word here so as not to offend* as it was.

 

Hard, innit.

 

Sorry, but I think real reasons in disputing facts are required. None of this namby-pamby nonsense. What is wrong with facts!? I'm a puff, fact! I'm not offended, lol. Just the way I am.

 

And if I see that %^)*&!! Cruise on the telly, I am going to lose my rag.

 

Yours

 

Martini Bianco, on ice.

[Spiceskull]

Like I said Spiceskull, I don't disagree. You have to consider though that the moderators are among the more experienced people on the site. Ultimately it is probably preferable that they spend more of their (volunteered) time giving help and advice to people with consumer issues than refereering spats on threads about the Pope.

I agree with that sentiment exactly, and in support of that view I think that mods should stay out of the Bear Garden ... historically the place where most butts get bitten.

 

I only started this thread in defence of a dear old friend, at one point the most respected mod on CAG (the reasons for which are lost in the mists of pre-history) - what is happening is a repeat performance of what happened two or three years ago ... an inner cabal attempting to impose their will on the majority, with all dissenters either shouted down, or where that shouting has no effect they are neutered by post removal.

 

Believe me, it has been said before and it will be said again ... the best and most suitable mods are the ones that don't want the role. You need to question the motives of those who actively seek promotion to the role of mod.

[Dodgy Geezer]

The essence of CAG remains the same. Sadly the spirit has gone since commercialisation.

[Fred Bassett]

Well it's not a job that I'd want to be honest. Maybe there should be a mod-free zone called "Anything Goes" - with the clear disclaimer from the site team that the views therein do not represent the views of the CAG.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[Spiceskull]

Well it's not a job that I'd want to be honest. Maybe there should be a mod-free zone called "Anything Goes" - with the clear disclaimer from the site team that the views therein do not represent the views of the CAG.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

Perfect ... and that is exactly how the Bear Garden started out. If people had serious issues with specific points then these could be reported for investigation by the mods. What the mods didn't do was trawl the BG looking for offence where none was reported. Talk of the Pope should be in this section, it should be allowed, and it should be unmoderated ... if people get upset by the "ungodly" amongst us then it shows just how shaky the foundations of their faith truly are.

[Thailand]

Well it's not a job that I'd want to be honest. Maybe there should be a mod-free zone called "Anything Goes" - with the clear disclaimer from the site team that the views therein do not represent the views of the CAG.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

 

Would love it, with just a view to removing libellous/legal comments. Opinion, modding opinon, removed! Not a mods opinion, but the power as such.

[mightymouse_69]

Well it's not a job that I'd want to be honest. Maybe there should be a mod-free zone called "Anything Goes" - with the clear disclaimer from the site team that the views therein do not represent the views of the CAG.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

 

Such a forum exists on an aviation based forum. It works rather well. Some forums also offer two types of membership: general membership in which a member can view and post in normal forums and 'special' membership which allows the member to view and post in the "Off Topic forum".

 

The two tier membership idea works well because is helps separate the primary role of the forum (IE: A forum for those employed in Aviation) from its off topic 'anything' goes section. Also, should a member in the off topic section persistently breach the site rules, they can be banned from that area of the forum yet be able to contribute to the rest of the site.

[mightymouse_69]

And also - the two tier membership idea stops "visitors" and potential members from being frightened by the heated debates in the off topic section!

[Dodgy Geezer]

To many "supporters" to upset now im afraid. Must be squeaky.

[locutus]

That's how I see the bear garden. Also, this is the place where off topic and trolling is generally moved to preserve a thread in any other specific section of CAG.

 

I don't buy the xenaphobia claims, but even if the posts were xenaphobic, isn't this the place to put people straight?

[callumsgran]

That's how I see the bear garden. Also, this is the place where off topic and trolling is generally moved to preserve a thread in any other specific section of CAG.

 

I don't buy the xenaphobia claims, but even if the posts were xenaphobic, isn't this the place to put people straight?

Close your ears Thai lmao

[Thailand]

I don't see why not Loccy!!

 

Xenophobia claim was a bit weird though, wasn't it? I could never be such a thing, but who was to be used as a reason? I think that was a mistake. Sort of tied up in trying to explain away things. I'm not looking for an argument, at all, but I feel that was proof of not understanding the situ. I think it's best, btw, if site team are encouraged to post their real feelings, rather than a group stance. I can understand the need for alligiance, but why not allow for inter-team debate?

 

Maybe I'm missing a fundamental point, it's just the silence is deafening. And those threads are still gone, for which, were important to me. I at least want to know why.. still. Miserable git with-a-wine-in-me I am.

[Thailand]

LOL CG.