Censorship

[freddy]

Hi folks. I have to admit that I'm one of those that have been put off by apparent bickering and constant references to 'certain' topics. I think that the points have been covered more than adequately and time to move on. I have been tempted once or twice to join in these debates, but I could see the way it was going on previous threads, where I felt that one or two members were being ridiculed for no good reason other than to prove some point. Although I'm no large contributor, I like this forum and it's members, so please, keep it friendly eh ?

Cheers...Freddy

[Catherine]

I have not been on for several weeks and have missed this hoo haa, I love coming on this site and would hate for it to get too political and argumentative.

[Mike Vogel]

I can't remember exactly what happened on the thread that was pulled, but I seem to recall that the problem wasn't the heaviness of the topic or the political nature of the discussion, but the fact that it became PERSONALLY oppositional. We should surely be able to voice strongly-held opinions but we must not denigrate anyone else for theirs if they happen to be opposed to ours.

As i said about 3 years ago under similar circumstances, we all surely have respect for each other and are able to recognise the value of the great deal of knowledge, experience or plain common sense which we bring to this forum. Don't let us get heated AGAINST one another, but let us instead argue FOR what we hold dear. There is usually a lot more common ground between protagonists of opposing ideas than one might expect.

[Mike Vogel]

Sorry - a PS. Now that I have looked at the topic that was locked, I must say I am surprised, for reasons given by Alan. Perhaps the original idea of "General chatter" was to have a forum for discussing personal issues, such as disability access to concert halls or catering at garden centres, problems on one's local allotments, etc - when a member has encountered a difficulty which [s]he wishes to get other people's opinion on. Would it be a good idea then, Peter, to have what you have hinted at, a separate site for serious general topics, like climate change, GM issues or political discussions, where the issues are of a general nature and are not actually creating an immediate issue for the initiator of the thread?

[Nature's Babe]

I am just wondering how mods might decide to moderate a situation where
a post starts off non-contentiously, and then one or more hijack the thread to argue their own viewpoints, maybe just the argument needs to move to the boxing ring not the original post if that is not part of the argument ?
I am thinking threads do sometimes change subject direction completely,

[Geoff]

I like the idea of a political thread - Boxing Ring sounds a good title. If a thread elsewhere drifted the moderators could move it rather than locking or deleting it.
I decided some months ago to stop contributing to these debates about peat, climate change, GM, mycelium, lunacy planting (damn shown my true colours) etc. as the tone was just not right. I have what I think are rational science based opinions on them that do respect ecological objectives but the new breed of green luddites have no concept of compromise and the supporters of science often seem equally extreme. Man's ingenuity will get there eventually if it is allowed to flourish through open minds and education.
Was the TV debate last night any good - I recorded it.

[Colin Miles]

I think Nature's Babe is right about topics changing direction. Also, I think it is rather difficult, if not impossible, to disentangle Gardening from many of the 'political' issues that we are ALL involved in, whether we like it or not. Food miles, peat usage, composting (methane), water usage, what to plant if the climate warms, or cools, becomes wetter or drier, and of course the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, GM and whether organic or non-organic is the way forward, or a mix of the two, what is sustainability, etc., etc. Indeed, I would say that this Forum is playing a very useful role in airing these topics. Yes, inevitably feelings can be aroused and sometimes the wording used is not as sensitive as it could be, but that is down to our human fallibility.

I would suggest that some kind of general 'warning' somewhere on the site as to the serious and sometimes heated nature of these discussions might be a more appropriate way of dealing with things. They are important and in many ways it is good that a Forum like this is taking the lead in airing them.

[Cider Boys]

If forum members do not like the tone of a thread then surely they can refrain from reading it.

In my view as long as physical violence is not threatened then we should be aloud to differ in strong terms.

It would be a very boring forum if we only exchanged pleasantries about vegetables. Anycase, we have long had many fools come and go, but perhaps some of the biggest fools, including myself, have remained with an interesting and informative gardening forum because of the frankness of many of the members.

Barney

[Nature's Babe]

I watched 2010 BBC Iplayer youth debate held in Parliament and was very impressed by how the debate ran. Differing views were heard, no one's ideas were denigrated, no person was insulted, and all views were recieved respectfully and applauded on both sides of the argument, if these are MP'S
of the future well done, they were articulate and passionate and polite which speaks volumes for their education and talents. Top marks to the government for enterprise, for according youth respect, giving them an opportunity to be heard, and encouraging their positive participation. No jeers or calls for order, as in the adult parliament - wonderful. For those interested here is the link -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 9_10_2010/

[richard p]

im pretty much in agrement with barny on this one.... having been arround here for a few years, i can tell when something like gm comes up who of the old hands will post, pretty much what they say will be the same as last time... they will never change, they are entitled to their views. having gone through the arguments in the past i probably wont bother reading them again but if i do i may chose to comment or just move on to something else convinced the old bxxxxxs are still as daft as ever.
ive seen forums that have an argument section, landyzone is one beleive me its not a road( or green lane) you want to go down.

we are never all going to agree about everything ,if people want to argue round in circles for pages on end, let them i can choose whether to read it or not, or to join in or not.

[glallotments]

I am just wondering how mods might decide to moderate a situation where
a post starts off non-contentiously, and then one or more hijack the thread to argue their own viewpoints, maybe just the argument needs to move to the boxing ring not the original post if that is not part of the argument ?
I am thinking threads do sometimes change subject direction completely,

This could get very complicated - maybe just a simple message from a mod to remind people of the original topic with a suggestion that if they wish to discuss the diversion that they start a new thread in the appropriate place. I must say though some diversions are non contentious and, although it may irritate the person starting the thread, turn out to be interesting as this is how conversations work in the 'real world'.

[richard p]

so what was wrong with the global warming, how gardens might change in the future thread? to get it locked by a mod

[John Walker]

I was surprised and disappointed to see the 'global warming - how gardens might change in the future' thread locked, so I emailed KG editor Steve Ott and asked him if he would consider unlocking it.

This is what I said:

"I spent some time earlier composing a comment for the forum thread below (to respond to some claims that I felt needed to be balanced by some actual factual science). I now find that the thread has been 'locked' by a moderator for the spurious reason of "there have been rather too many "interesting discussions" on the forum lately, so lets stick to gardening for a while please".

Now this is indeed an interesting thread and it has PLENTY to do with gardening on many different levels, so can I please request that it is unlocked with immediate effect. I can see no valid reason for it being locked; no one has said anything out of turn and the discussion began and remains in reasonably good spirit. The forum is an area for debate and in most instances it is simply wrong to switch the debate 'off' in order to 'stick to gardening'. This action could be construed as someone's personal prejudice [i.e. a moderator] influencing a debate they are free to take part in.

I have seen countless threads in the time I have made contributions to the KG forum which were well worthy of being locked and which desperately needed moderation (which is basically non-existent even when some is desperately required).

I trust you will be able to look again at this and let this important discussion evolve however it might."

My hope is that the thread will be unlocked and those that wish to contribute further can do so.

My overall impression is that the discussion over 'censorship' is rather a storm in a teacup. Yes, there are a few individuals who could do with brushing up on their manners, who might ponder whether they would act in the same way if we were all sitting in a room together, unhidden, discussing these topics. Of course in that situation there would, hopefully, be someone nominated to steer and guide a discussion, although it would still require a basic respectfulness of different points of view.

A forum like this doesn't have that luxury and no moderator can be expected to fulfil that role, so the onus is firmly on the contributors to keep reminding themselves that some of the normal 'rules' of good, robust debate don't automatically apply. We need to apply our own checks and balances and apply empathy a little more than we are perhaps used to doing in real rather than 'virtual' life.

Using an online forum isn't a bad way of communicating so long as we remember that some of the rules of discussion don't work too well in the virtual world, and that we all need to find some new ones that do. I for one will certainly be trying harder to improve my own efforts at communication.

[madasafish]

I agree with John Walker above re the Global Warming Garden thread..

He was just getting interesting - even if he was is wrong!

[oldherbaceous]

I would just like to come to Peters defence here, he was in a no win situation really, i think most of us could see where it was going, so he just tried to calm things for a while, as simple as that.