[SimonS1]

[quote quote=917281]You say I was mistaken all along. Maybe I was. I believed in debate. So now we can’t have a debate I’m asking you all what you’d like instead.[/quote]

An appropriate level of moderation (either by BT or volunteers) that allows for debate but removes extreme or unacceptable content (like that which we are discussing) expeditiously.

[PatJordan]

It seems to me that this is exactly what we have right now in the forum.

And let’s remember that Tom and the BT team provide this valuable resource at no cost to us, the users.

I for one am very grateful for this.

Pat

18 users thanked author for this post.

TupeloKid, handbag, Montysaurus, Ahmad, stevescoots, Swissdiver, PeterCoultas, MartynSinclair, canucklad, capetonianm, LuganoPirate, AlanOrton1, cwoodward, Bath_VIP, Tom Otley, GivingupBA, Johnnyg, Ekond222

[LuganoPirate]

[quote quote=917274]I missed the post that has caused this apparently rather overblown response…..could you please repost for 24 hours so I can make up my own mind rather than relying on partisan comments ?[/quote]

I also missed it and am curious, but I guess we’ll not get to see what was said unless a poster who knows me can email the offending post!

It’s clearly caused some controversy, but as I’ve not seen it I can’t comment, but what i would say is that Tom is the editor and as such any editorial content or comment, be it in the magazine or on the forum is for him to decide if it should be printed/posted or not. If we don’t like that policy, we are equally free to cancel our subscription or remove ourself from the forum. That is our choice.

From my side, I enjoy the forum, I find it very useful, and I’m grateful to Tom and the team for the work they put into it. The only way I can thank them is by commenting and hopefully making it more useful to others, and by subscribing to the magazine, which I do.

5 users thanked author for this post.

TupeloKid, Ahmad, PeterCoultas, PatJordan, capetonianm

[canucklad]

My primary concern with , as Tom call’s it ….. “a whipped up sh#tstorm” is that it’s an external force that has used intimidation to force their values and beliefs on “our” forum .

Consciously I use the words “Our Forum”
The many contributors on here are clearly intelligent, thoughtful people whose differing live experiences create an anthology of opinion that spans the vast political, religious, and other stuff that makes everyday life a wonderful game of chance!

You might not agree with some statements
You might choose to be offended by some written comments
You might (as I regularly do) roll my eyes and tut-tut at certain remarks
You might fully endorse the opinions of others

In all cases your soul should be enriched because your intellect has continually evolved through others views

And here’s the rub, I can choose to ignore (specifically this case) as “silly” or “outrageous” or , as I did, respond with a commentary that challenges that individuals belief system.
It’s not my place to categorically state that views of that individual are wrong, Challenging a belief is wrought with difficulty
However I can hopefully get that individual to think again about their behaviour through the medium of their own self reflection

It’s also worth reminding our self that legislation exists to prosecute individuals, when that line has been crossed.
And I’m sure the editorial team are well aware as publishers where that line is….

For someone, somewhere else , and potentially a competitor to the magazine , to deem themselves worthy of the position of censor , not moderator is a very dangerous space to move in ….

Ironically, I probably share more leftie , liberal views with the Twitter person, than I do with a lot of my fellow BT friends on here.
But IMO, our society is becoming more fractured as the liberal western elite chooses to suppress opinions not in line with their own future vision ……. And regardless of your own views, the evidence of the disenfranchised becoming embolden in ways I wouldn’t like are all around us !!

To summarise, I wouldn’t like to be a member/contributor of a valuable enjoyable forum that ultimately needs to keep looking over its shoulder at a censor that at their own behest can hold us all accountable to their view by simply “whipping up sh#tstorm”

7 users thanked author for this post.

Johnnyg, Ahmad, cwoodward, capetonianm, Tramor01, PatJordan, LuganoPirate

[Bath_VIP]

Like many, I didn’t see the cause of this spat. But following the exchange between Tom & Simon here, I will say that Tom comes across as more persuasive. Simon is coming across as wanting his views to be the arbiter of what should and shouldn’t be published. In that case, go and buy BT and takeover from Tom. For now, it is BT’s game, Tom is doing an excellent job in my opinion and if I didn’t think that, I would be off somewhere else.

8 users thanked author for this post.

Johnnyg, Ahmad, Swissdiver, GivingupBA, capetonianm, PeterCoultas, PatJordan, LuganoPirate

[SimonS1]

[quote quote=917421]Like many, I didn’t see the cause of this spat. But following the exchange between Tom & Simon here, I will say that Tom comes across as more persuasive. Simon is coming across as wanting his views to be the arbiter of what should and shouldn’t be published. In that case, go and buy BT and takeover from Tom. For now, it is BT’s game, Tom is doing an excellent job in my opinion and if I didn’t think that, I would be off somewhere else.[/quote]

Do you believe that using the phrase “the one guy who ‘patted me down’ was a radical muslim, I believe a Somali” to describe an unfavourable encounter with a security agent at Heathrow is acceptable then?

The language used is still there on the thread.

You agree with Tom, of course that’s your perogative. I tend to agree with the blogger on Twitter who described it as “vile stereotyping”. So presumably did Tom, who then decided to back down and remove the content some weeks later.

I don’t want to be the arbiter of anything, however I am not aware of many forums that would allow that type of content.

As for the bit about “go and buy BT and take over from Tom”, well we all have different views, I don’t think it is really necessary to be silly about it. Anyway I think the debate has run it’s course. Free world and all that.

[Jenni Reid]

Hi all. Just wanted to weigh in quickly as another member of the BT team.

Clearly we all agree that the best user experience does not censor debate, but does not mean people have to read blatant racism, homophobia, etc.

In the past we have tended towards allowing the stupidity of some views to speak for themselves, knowing that other users will call them out and challenge them. As Tom has said, the justification for this was not to ‘promote’ the opinion but to let the commenter know that others find it unacceptable.

After discussion among the team, with forum users and with the public, we have decided we will tend towards removing content that is clearly discriminatory, not to mention adds nothing to discussion about business travel. That is what our initial post was meant to signal.

Some of you will disagree with this decision, but hopefully you can trust that we will achieve this without blindly deleting comments that provoke any kind of reaction. Thanks all for your passion for making the forum as good as it can be, and as canucklad says, creating an anthology of opinion for all to learn from.

14 users thanked author for this post.

TupeloKid, Johnnyg, handbag, FaroFlyer, Ahmad, cwoodward, LuganoPirate, Swissdiver, GivingupBA, capetonianm, travelworld2, SimonS1, Ekond222, PatJordan

[SimonS1]

[quote quote=917435]Hi all. Just wanted to weigh in quickly as another member of the BT team.

Clearly we all agree that the best user experience does not censor debate, but does not mean people have to read blatant racism, homophobia, etc.

In the past we have tended towards allowing the stupidity of some views to speak for themselves, knowing that other users will call them out and challenge them. As Tom has said, the justification for this was not to ‘promote’ the opinion but to let the commenter know that others find it unacceptable.

After discussion among the team, with forum users and with the public, we have decided we will tend towards removing content that is clearly discriminatory, not to mention adds nothing to discussion about business travel. That is what our initial post was meant to signal.

Some of you will disagree with this decision, but hopefully you can trust that we will achieve this without blindly deleting comments that provoke any kind of reaction. Thanks all for your passion for making the forum as good as it can be, and as canucklad says, creating an anthology of opinion for all to learn from.[/quote]

Good. Exactly the right approach, and clearly expressed. Proactively removing such material is correct, and does not in any way censor sensible debate. There is no need for discriminatory language even if you have strong views.

Thank you.

[Bath_VIP]

SimonS1

It doesn’t matter what I think of that phrase, it’s BT forum and they get to make that decision. There’s a big difference between calling out people for what they say (which I have done in the past and it sounds like some did in this instance) versus censoring what is said. According Jenni Reid it now seems that BT will operate a censorship model going forward but this will solve nothing, you can guarantee that in future we will back to where we are today with someone calling for censorship of something else and perhaps you saying it shouldn’t be censored. Unless you are in charge, it is BT’s ball and we are free to play their game or not.

[capetonianm]

Do you believe that using the phrase “the one guy who ‘patted me down’ was a radical muslim, I believe a Somali” to describe an unfavourable encounter with a security agent at Heathrow is acceptable then?

It’s a stupid, ignorant,pointless and incorrect observation, but I fail to see why it has to be branded as ‘racist’. It should have been allowed to remain as a monument to the idiocy of the original poster. As stupid as someone standing in the Sahara desert in 45’C and claiming that there is heavy snowfall.

I don’t use Twitter so I have no idea what ensued there.

[Swissdiver]

I believe in free speech, because this is the foundation of any democracy. But free speech doesn’t exist anymore as any one could make a fuss on anything written or said. It is sad and often counterproductive. But it is. So moderating a forum in the 21st century is very challenging. As many of you, I believe Tom and his team are doing a great job by limiting to the maximum their interventions.

Thank you, Tom and the team!

12 users thanked author for this post.

Johnnyg, handbag, Jacob, Ahmad, canucklad, capetonianm, cwoodward, Ekond222, PatJordan, Bath_VIP, Tom Otley, GivingupBA

[Johnnyg]

Swissdiver +1

[SimonS1]

[quote quote=917451]According Jenni Reid it now seems that BT will operate a censorship model going forward but this will solve nothing, [/quote]

Some would call it censorship….99% of forums would call it moderation.

And I suppose you could follow your own advice if you don’t like Jenni’s proposal – what was it, go buy BT or something?

[Author]

Posts