The fact that it was put back needs to be considered as good faith from the site as a whole.

The timeline as I see it, was, the tribute, the removal, the farewell, and then action to restore. The restoration was reactionary because of the member who wrote the farewell. I don't see it as a measure of good faith, I wish I could, but I see it as a futile attempt at damage control.

 

First, thanks for the words of support from all that gave it. It means a lot.

I am comfortable coming back because it is evident that the site as a whole finds my tribute reasonable, acceptable, non-political, and non-offensive. That was clearly shown by the rather prompt restoration of my tribute and the fact that it has (thus far) remained.

Normally were I to make a post that any moderator found inappropriate and had deleted I would have shrugged my shoulders and moved on. The moderator in question PM'ed me before deleting saying:

Have a happy Memorial Day and enjoy it as you wish.
However, your post could be considered political and would be offensive to some.
I personally do not agree with your statements and as a moderator would delete your post.
As fellow moderator we have see some common ground.

I actually started to delete the post but stopped and asked myself what my pledge meant if a reaction like this was sufficient to squelch me. So instead I added a reply to it clarifying that it was not political in any way. To highlight this, I pointed out that the first U.S. Memorial Day (then called Decoration Day) ceremony was held barely three years after the end of the U.S. Civil War at Arlington and that the Grand Army of the Republic, the organization of Union veterans, decorated graves of both the Union and the Confederate dead. But when I went to submit the reply it was rejected because the thread had already been deleted -- the time between mentioning that we need some common ground, which to me implied some level of discussion should take place, and unilaterally deleting the post was all of nine minutes.

So, again I had to ask myself what my pledge meant. As I indicated in my Farewell post, when making the decision between that pledge and a site the censors (and has every right to do so) that tribute on those grounds, the decision really can go only one way unless I am willing to admit that my pledge is without substance. So I posted my Farewell post and then received an e-mail notifying me that that post, too, had been deleted. I could actually see more grounds for considering that post divisive, but it certainly didn't do anything to make me feel more receptive to coming back. As it turns out, I know now, the post was deleted only to provide a "cooling off" period, as explained by Bill Marsden when he reinstated it.

I had not specifically intended to visit AAC today, though there was little doubt that I would at some point. I did choose not to visit until after the Memorial Day weekend was over and have still not checked in on the Mod Forum. However, upon seeing that both threads were reinstated and seeing the reaction in this thread, I really could not justify NOT replying or staying away.

Now, to address a few of the points made by members along the way here, this is not and never was a Freedom of Speech issue. First, this is an international forum and, to the best of my knowledge, the ownership and servers are not even located in the U.S. and are not bound by the U.S. Constitution. Second, this is a private forum and so, even if it were entirely contained with the U.S., it would not be bound by the 1st Amendment since that places restrictions on the government. So that's a non-issue.

Then there is the matter of how things get moderated on a forum such as this. It is a very informal and ad-hoc process, and I suspect very similar to the majority of on-line forums that rely on unpaid volunteers to keep the site running. Having a discussion and reaching a concensus on every moderator action is just not practical. Moderators exercise their own discretion in deciding what actions to take and usually act unilaterally to enforce the owner's policies as they understand them. Most of the time things are pretty clear cut and this works just fine. Occasionally a moderator will ask for input from the rest of the staff on a borderline issue (which is very arguably what should have happened here) and we discuss it -- sometimes without actually coming to a consensus, which generally then defaults to the post remaining, though lack of action if nothing else.

Finally, I see no need for any kind of apology from anyone, public or private. The site, as a whole, has indicated that the tribute is acceptable and that is good enough for me. As for the moderator in question, they either believe they acted a bit precipitously and have learned something or they still believe they acted properly, were overruled, and have learned something. Moderators are human and are fallable, both indivually and collectively. We make mistakes, we learn from them, and we move on. That was never the issue, either. I left not because of what I believed to be a moderator's error, but because of an apparent conflict between being a member here and a higher obligation. That conflict appears to have been resolved.

I don't foresee any problem working with that other moderator moving forward, either. As I indicated in another thread recently to someone that was stalking, what happens in a thread stays in a thread.

Once again, thanks to all those that voiced your support, either of me or, more importantly, my message.

It's good to be back.

 

The timeline as I see it, was, the tribute, the removal, the farewell, and then action to restore. The restoration was reactionary because of the member who wrote the farewell. I don't see it as a measure of good faith, I wish I could, but I see it as a futile attempt at damage control.

That's the timeline that would be apparent, but it was more complicated than that as things happened in parallel.

It appears that the restoration happened while I was writing my farewell and they crossed. So not only was it not post-action damage control, it was actually a rather prompt action to correct a mistake.

 

Remember, however, that the initial action (closing of the thread) was also an infringement of the freedom of speech.

Quite the opposite in fact. Closing the thread was free speech, just not that of the poster. It is speech of the owner of this site thru the moderator.

When you own the bat and the ball you get to call the game and make all the rules.

I am very happy to see WBahn is back once more.

 

Quite the opposite in fact. Closing the thread was free speech, just not that of the poster. It is speech of the owner of this site thru the moderator...

Rationalizations aside, stifling the speech of another is hardly in keeping with the principle of free speech!

That said, as per WBahn's comments (above), free speech (though, IMO, arguably, a basic human right) is, unfortunately, not a universal civil right... --- In any event, if the current state of affairs is cool with WBahn it's good enough for me!

Welcome back!
HP

 

I am little late here but Welcome Back and please stay cause I don't need a reason to go on a raiding party for a certain someone.... Or we could do it like the rednecks and beat the crap of each other till someone gets knocked out or gives up and then you hug and be friends...

 

Thanks for the welcome backs.

The other moderator and I are basically agreeing to disagree and move on. I really don't foresee any lasting fallout -- at least not until next Memorial Day. They claim that their intent was to engage in a discussion (behind the scenes) in an effort to change the wording of my tribute so as to make it less offensive and, presumable, more effective. I've told them that I am willing to consider their recommendations, though a fair amount of thought went into the wording I used. But I've massaged it over the years and am always open to making it better. We'll see what happens.

 

welcome back......now go to work.

 

I feel if there was a problem with a post the it should been addressed with the original poster not just deleted .. I am not saying if the post gets out hand it shouldn't be closed or someone shouldn't get warned but it should have been handled like adults and brought to there attention or ask at least find your true intent for post..

 

I feel if there was a problem with a post the it should been addressed with the original poster not just deleted .. I am not saying if the post gets out hand it shouldn't be closed or someone shouldn't get warned but it should have been handled like adults and brought to there attention or ask at least find your true intent for post..

One thing to keep in mind is that "deleting a post" doesn't make it go away permanently (as this amply shows). We have the option of permanently deleting a post, but that is almost never used here and, instead, when we "delete" a post it is removed from public view and placed in a hidden forum. This not only makes the deletion reversible, but "preserves the evidence" so to speak. I have a hard time thinking about when a post might be permanently deleted here, though I'm sure many forums use that as the default option in order to avoid using storage space for deleted posts.

 

They claim that their intent was to engage in a discussion (behind the scenes) in an effort to change the wording of my tribute so as to make it less offensive and, presumable, more effective.

I had to go back and read it a few times. That anything you wrote could be construed as "offensive" is, to me, deeply offensive.

I'm sure we'll all get over this and move on, but I can tell you I'll never view this forum quite the same way again.

 

I had to go back and read it a few times. That anything you wrote could be construed as "offensive" is, to me, deeply offensive.

At this point I am also at a complete loss. Hopefully the other person will communicate exactly what they found so objectionable (or potentially offensive).

I'm sure we'll all get over this and move on, but I can tell you I'll never view this forum quite the same way again.

And that's a shame, because I hope that this doesn't have any lingering effects like that. Please consider it as being a disagreement between two members, who just happen to both be moderators. If anything, view the forum itself from two points: (1) the post in question was an Off Topic post unrelated to the mission of the forum, and (2) the post was reinstated very promptly.

 

However, your post could be considered political and would be offensive to some.

Could be considered and could be offensive is a far cry from receiving a complaint about a posting. Everyone knows there is a REPORT button to have a moderator look at a posting some member feels inappropriate. Without such a "complaint" the moderators should not decide what is appropriate or not, in the should be and could be categories. Everything could be political and may be offensive to someone in the Off Topic area. I think a moderator need to deal with facts, not maybe, could be, would be.

The codified "free speech" amendment does NOT apply to these forums, however, when people, especially citizens of the United States, it is codified. The tenets of free speech don't need government backing to be applied to this world wide forum, it only needs the owners "blessing".

I am glad you back WBahn. You are a valuable asset.

Yes, I understand disagreement amongst moderators can happen, and they need to work that out, for consistent moderation of a forum. We would be a screwed up world if everyone thought exactly alike.

 

Could be considered and could be offensive is a far cry from receiving a complaint about a posting. Everyone knows there is a REPORT button to have a moderator look at a posting some member feels inappropriate. Without such a "complaint" the moderators should not decide what is appropriate or not, in the should be and could be categories.

I don't recall reading that in the TOS.

 

We would be a screwed up world if everyone thought exactly alike.

Considering how screwed up the work is, everyone must think pretty much alike.

Hope that isn't too political...

 

I don't recall reading that in the TOS.

You probably won't either.

You won't read about grammar or word definitions in the TOS either.

You could write a sentence where some would "complain" about you, even though the words you chose were legitimate, yet the reader only knows the contemporary usage of a word and it could offend someone.

I'm sure this post could offend at least one person in the world. If it offends you, press the Report button.

 

All of this over a tribute; no matter what I would have tread lightly on this issue. Of course unless it was meant to be personal.

Which I thought it was most likely to be a personal attack for some unknown reason? Regardless of ones reasoning; stomping around is not acceptable instead of being part of a solution then you become part of the problem.

For the Record; I enjoy all members of this forum. Both now, past and future; it's a sad day in AAC's history as we shouldn't loose any.

kv

 

You probably won't either.

Of course I won't, because it's not a rule. In fact, from the TOS, which we all agreed to when signing up:

All Content you submit or upload may be reviewed by staff members.

These is no requirement for a post or thread to be "reported" before review by the staff. Neither is there a requirement for a post or thread to be reported before the staff takes action on it.

 

Edit: Nm

 

You forgot the ever popular

We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content submitted for any reason without explanation.

And if someone want's to hide behind that reason, so be it. The first time I hear them evoking that phrase, is the last time I will appear on these boards.