Post deleted. War time Atrocities!

[Grizzly]

Steve, it was never my intention to start a war on the rules or the Mods, my original post was merely to seek a explanation of why the original post was removed without an explanation. I have already stated that I was quick off the mark to seek this explanation without perhaps giving the Mods time to draft a formal response. I suppose that it was because of the content and deeply political nature that I reacted so quickly on what I consider to be the foremost open, honest and friendly forum that I have ever belonged too. The original thread seemed to me to be so far off the scale in terms of content when judged against our rules that I could not help but to comment against its appropriateness on this family forum and I am not using that term to hide behind, it's a fact!

To use this thread to query the rules or the actions of the mods is taking my original post way off topic and therefore as the original poster of this thread you have my permission (not that you need it) to close it at any time you feel appropriate. The mods have given me my answer, thank you.

[Alan H]

This was NOT "censorship". As has been pointed out, just re-pointed out by Steve, and posted by myself, I ENCOURAGED the Mods to delete the original post if they felt it was pushing the bounds of what was permissable on the forum. That's hardly "censorship".

~meh~ 'nuff of this.

[Jock Scot]

With the greatest of respect Steve, I have just re-read all of the posts on this thread( I did see Alan's other thread and posts) and I have to say I do not read in this thread what you appear to have read. I quite accept that my interpretation of what has been written here will differ from yours, perhaps its a trans-Atlantic thing, perhaps its an educational thing, perhaps its just one of those things, who knows, but in my view, it has been a most enlightening thread, with firm views voiced in a civil way and for that, if I may say so, this website should be justly proud.

[Micric]

Steve,

I was not in on this thread from the beginning, and it was your explanation on page 6 that gave me the reason it was removed. (politics)
I might be mistaken, but had not noted this explanation prior to that.
In this War Crimes thread, I had mentioned the value of knowing the facts. I think I see a parallel here!

Seeing as the original thread was not removed for actual war crime content, may I make a suggestion?
If in future someone "discovers" facts of this nature that they think should be shared, why not have it as a closed topic?
By that I mean the facts will be stated but Not open for discussion.
After all, any serious perpetration of atrocity is recoded after the fact, so what is there to discuss? facts are facts.
If anyone wishes to look deeper into the matter, they can do so in their own way and time, but not here.

The above would make life easier for the Mods, (nothing can really go wrong in a closed thread) and at the same time, the facts are getting out to those unaware.

[Steve Ashton]

Micric,

It is not an issue of the topic of the thread. It is not an issue of where that thread was posted.
The Misc. forum section was set up for just this sort of thing and is allowed there - As long as the post stays within the forum rules.

If the thread about the war atrocities of area 731 had simply stayed about the historical facts. If it had stayed informational as to the horrendous nature of what happened. If it had stayed within the rules it would probably still be there.

There is really no reason to create a bunch of closed threads. We don't close threads because they are controversial or because they are uncomfortable to us. We only close threads that are so clearly outside the limits set by the Forum Rules.

If anyone, even Alan, were to post another thread about this topic, and include the same link to the youtube video, I don't see anyone being against it.

As long as what is posted stays within the forum rules.

[Micric]

Steve,

I do not know if you read what I wrote, I full understand why it was closed.
My suggestion was to make it simpler in the future.

I note you are a bit tense about all this so will leave this subject now.

Best wishes,
Richard.

[Steve Ashton]

I'm not tense at all Micric.

I am just answering your suggestion from experience.

Yes, I suppose that we could create something like your closed topic.
But let me ask -
Who does the job of closing these threads fall to? What criteria is to be used to determine that a thread should be closed?
Experience shows that anytime a moderator closes a thread we are met with the same sort of indignation that this thread has engendered.

Experience has shown that very few members will contact the staff before hand. In my 9 years on this forum I can remember only a handful who approached the staff prior to posting with something like - "What do you think about this post?"
I have never seen or even heard of someone approaching the staff saying "I'm going to post something controversial so please close it right after I post."

I would ask the question how many members have actually contacted the staff, actually talked to them? I think you would find that it is a very small number.

So the responsibility for policing all the posts, in all the forum sections, falls on the Moderators again. In effect it would turn the Moderators into forum cops.

The current system says that the Moderators do not need to be forum cops. It is not up to them to monitor every post.

We have found from experience that it is much more effective, much fairer, to allow the members to tell the staff what they think is acceptable. The members do this by raising a flag.

The only determination the Moderators make is - "Does this post break one of the forum rules?"

And post that does not break a forum rule is left alone.

I know that it is natural to suspect that the Forum Moderators are crawling around the forum looking at everything and closing things on nothing but a whim.
But I can tell you for a fact that this is not so. No one person's sensibilities carries more sway, no one person makes the determination that a post needs to be taken off the forum. We have 9 voting Moderators. If a post is closed or removed I can guarantee that there was a vote and the majority decided.

The fact is that the Moderators much prefer that they are never needed.

[Micric]

Steve,

I was thinking on the lines of a separate little boxed section, where topics like this could be posted, but where there was No Provision to reply.
Anyone posting therein would know beforehand that there would be no replies, but the information is still being made available.

Please pardon for taking up your time.

Best wishes,
Richard.

[Steve Ashton]

You're not taking up my time at all. This is my job. And I love my job.
You have brought up a valid suggestion and I'm trying to answer it to the best of my ability.

What I'm asking is who makes the determination to put a thread into the "little boxed section"?

Is your section along the lines of Public Service Announcements?

[Micric]

Steve,

I am pleased you enjoy our job, even if trying at times!

I would suggest the person posting would make the determination, and Voluntarily place any post similar to the one discussed in this thread, in the "little boxed section". It is then open to be viewed, but not debated.

As I stated earlier, Making Aware is all that is required, and see no merit in discussing war crimes or similar heinous acts.


Richard.