Manipulating threads in the Lounge

[molendijk]

I hope that what I'm posting here will not be modified in such a way (by people who have been given the right to do so) that it violates the purpose of the original. I also hope that it will not simply be removed. I want to discuss this matter in PUBLIC.
The purpose of the lounge is to hang out and just chit chat, and that's what I'm doing here.
So here we go. I always thought the lounge was meant to allow people to express themselves on various topics (that are not necessarily related to scripting and the like). The lounge: freedom of speech, without unnecessarily hurting someones feelings.
So a couple of days ago, I posted a thread on lies. That was the topic: LIES. As an example, I inserted a link to a video showing what a person named Rick Santorum stated about euthanasia in Holland. The topic was LIES , not euthanasia. I thought other people might react with examples of lies related to other subjects. Anyway, it's clear that Rick Santorium LIED, very much so (see also http://santorumexposed.com/?p=702)). I felt personnaly insulted.
SURPRISE: the following day, my thread was renamed 'Rick Santorum on Euthanasia' (my original title was 'disgusting lies'), with this warning: MODERATOR'S NOTE - Warning, the video in the link is based on Euthanasia (why this warning?) and the following message: Note: this thread has been closed due to a collective decision by the moderators-- there's likely no benefit in discussing something that would just lead to more strongly polarized opinions (in both directions). If anyone has a question about it, you may contact one of us by private message.
If this is the way DD wants to manipulate threads that are honestly meant to talk about whatever subject, I don't feel like being in 'good company' anymore. (I thought Cold War manipulation was over).
I surely hope that the way DD acted has nothing to do with the change in the moderator's staff. And I also hope this very message won't be modified. If this is going to be the way DD treats threads it apparently doesn't like, I'm out.
Arie.

[djr33]

DD is not a place to promote a certain political agenda; what you posted and the way you posted it had no other potential purpose than emotional political reactions, and it was a collective decision of the moderators to 1) rephrase the post in a way that was less likely to incite emotional debate and 2) to close the discussion to avoid such debate.

I agree with you politically; I disagree with discussing something there that might cause disagreement. Opening a discussion like that necessarily entails along with it discussing other things, and it is something that must necessarily be defended by someone who supports Santorum.

We weren't exactly certain what the best reaction was. After discussing it, I decided to delete the post; after doing so, I decided that it was probably best left there rather than censoring you and closing the discussion to avoid arguments.

The post was edited for two reasons:
1) Your post was strongly worded and politically motivated (and I happen to agree with you) for one side or the other; this wasn't about the content, but about the presentation. If someone were to post a similar clip of Barack Obama, this would be edited as well if we found it to be something that could potentially lead to a problematic argument.
2) Any links (in any posts) that could be offensive or otherwise problematic are either removed or edited to include a warning for readers. For example, if someone asks a coding question about an "adult" website, we would add this kind of warning. You're right that the wording isn't entirely clear (it isn't my wording) but the point is clear enough-- it's the kind of link that might incite an argument (it opens up a very controversial topic).

Your post wasn't edited beyond that. And your post here won't be edited for those reasons, because they don't apply. We want to keep the forum productive and welcoming, and we don't think that such an aggressively worded discussion will help with that.

As I said in my post, this is something we can discuss if you have questions about it.


To be direct about it: my politics are in line with yours (for the most part), but if someone were to have opposing views and posting similar things, I'd think it perfectly reasonable to moderate them.


Dynamic Drive is a place to discuss code/web design and things that go along with that. The lounge is open for any kind of discussion beyond that, but we may stop a problematic discussion as needed. Along with that, we can always discuss anything about Dynamic Drive, along with the moderation policies. For political views, it's probably best to discuss them somewhere else. To the extent that it's fun and interesting to talk about certain things, they can be posted, but the moderators will step in if it seems like it might be a problem for the forum.

[molendijk]

DD is not a place to promote a certain political agenda
I didn't promote anything. I was talking about lying.
Arie.

[molendijk]

I disagree with discussing something there that might cause disagreement. Opening a discussion like that necessarily entails along with it discussing other things, and it is something that must necessarily be defended by someone who supports Santorum.
That 'somone' can react.
Arie.

[bernie1227]

That 'somone' can react.
Arie.

You are quite obviously attempting to incite an argument here. Dynamic drive forums is not a place to try and cause arguments, it is a place for coding and programming, and in the lounge extensions of that and more but not a place to try and get people who oppose your view to argue with you.

[djr33]

That 'somone' can react.That's exactly what we want to avoid. That's what it comes down to. If you wish to discuss that policy we can.

[traq]

Arie,

I was confused by the way you presented that thread - my first impression (despite the thread title) was that you were focused on the topic of euthanasia. Regardless, it's not the subject (either subject) that concerned me.

In the past, we have had (surprisingly!) civil discussions on sensitive topics, but they did not start the way your thread did. It's hard to expect thoughtful responses to such a blunt statement, especially when it's not particularly clear what the specific subject is. Personally, I could not imagine that thread leading anywhere but a flame war. Moderating your link, and adding that notice (which, to be clear, was not done to chastise you, but out of consideration for others who might want to avoid viewing the video), was done after careful consideration by several moderators, and was intended to help prevent that from happening.

I understand that you find Santorum's statements upsetting, and that's completely acceptable. I do not blame you, nor would I try to change your mind. Honestly, I think a discussion on euthanasia, including which "facts" are accurate and which aren't, could have been successful and productive - but it's difficult to start a rational "discussion" with an angry accusation. Conversation is okay - as Daniel says, what we want to avoid is "reacting" - hot, impulsive words - and I have no doubt that it would have come.

Again, I don't object to the topic, nor your feelings on the subject; I do think that the way the post was presented was nonproductive.

If you have any questions for me (or the other mods, I'm sure), you're welcome to ask them here, or by PM.

[molendijk]

Hello again, mods,

First, I appreciate the way you are handling my complaint in public, without hiding anything.

My way of presenting the topic ('lying') may have been a bit blunt. I tend to be overenthusiastic once in a while. But I was not flaming other members. I was not presenting my political agenda. I was just commenting the following misleading and un-true words by Santorum:
In the Netherlands people wear a different bracelet if you’re elderly and the bracelet is ‘do not euthanize me.’ Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, but half the people who are euthanized every year, and it’s 10 percent of all deaths for the Netherlands, half of those people are euthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick. And so elderly people in the Netherlands don’t go to the hospital, they go to another country, because they are afraid, because of budget purposes, that they will not come out of that hospital if they go in with sickness.

These statements are so completely and ridiculously false and they damage people so very much (a whole nation, in this case) that I thought a little bit of 'heaviness in my presentation' would be allowed.

Let me be clear. I myself am not in favor of euthanasia or abortion. It should only be allowed in very particular cases, for instance when someone repeatedly and explicitly asks for it (euthanasia) because he/she is suffering unbearable pains that will never go away, or when a daughter asks for abortion because she has been raped by her own father and as a consequence has gotten pregnant.

Not long ago, I buried my own mother (she was 92). She cherished life very much (as I do myself). The only thing she had around her neck was a 'do not resuscitate bracelet'. (Yes, these bracelets exist in the Netherlands). She had had several strokes and didn't want to be resuscitated after a fatal new one. People like Santorum should know these facts, and understand them. Aren't they the same people who sometimes are againt vaccination because you should not interfer with God's decisions and intentions? Well, they should also oppose, then, against resucitation.

Let me be clear: everyone has a right to state what he/she thinks is right or wrong, but no one has the right to distort the facts in order to defend his/her opinions.

Again, I thank the mods for treating this topic in public.

Arie.

[molendijk]

Sorry, felt the desire to add this (http://www.drasties.com/comments/erik_mouthaan_on_rick_santorums_lies_on_rachel_maddow_show).
Still a bit confused (meaning very angry about people lying),
Arie.
EDIT:
One of the moderators sent the following lines to me by (DD) email: [redacted]
Moderator's Edit [traq]:

Arie, I know that comment was upsetting. The person in question removed his comment from your original thread shortly after publishing it, and never intended it to be emailed to you. Please do not post it again without his permission (I believe he's PM'd you already regarding this).