UK Online Safety Laws - I, and therefore the site, are at risk (6 Viewers)

[Pat Hartman]

I never reported a complaint about anyone's post in that "Attack on Israel" thread. I am perfectly capable of debating without bullying anyone, and still stand firmly behind what I posted in that thread.

And that thread was shut down for a reason. It is inappropriate to continue the conversation here where no one will engage with you.

 

[BlueSpruce]

Do you really think they would not first warn a site owner to remedy the situation before moving forward with legal proceedings?
How do you know if an AWF member is underage, or an undercover UK agent?
I suggest providing disclaimers via email to people who request membership prior to onboarding them, display the disclaimers on the home landing page, and have them electronically sign after reading the rules and policies of this site. Otherwise, their membership could be restricted to certain forums, or other remedies.

 

[cheekybuddha]

I suggest providing disclaimers via email to people who request membership prior to onboarding them

Not quite sure why you're being such a drama merchant.

Just behave on the boards like a half-way decent human being and everyone will be fine.

If you step over wherever the arbitrary line is, the mods will take care of it.

It's annoying, but them's the cards that have been dealt.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Just behave on the boards like a half-way decent human being and everyone will be fine.

Therein lies the problem. Just who decides what conversation is acceptable. You? Me? There would be totally different opinions and that is just between the two of us. If we add more people, NOTHING gets past the censors. But, that does seem to be what you are aiming for.

 

[cheekybuddha]

Just who decides what conversation is acceptable. You? Me?

Not me. You. You're the mod.

Guess you have to evaluate everything in terms of whether Jon might end up bankrupt now.

I reckon everyone has a fair idea of where the line might be - now they will have to think harder about how close they want to sail.

 

[BlueSpruce]

Not quite sure why you're being such a drama merchant.

Just behave on the boards like a half-way decent human being and everyone will be fine.

If you step over wherever the arbitrary line is, the mods will take care of it.

It's annoying, but them's the cards that have been dealt.

So what exactly is the "arbitrary line", and what is done with moderators who do not set a good example for others? I'm not being a drama merchant nor misbehaving. On the contrary, I am providing suggestions on how AWF can stay out of trouble without going overboard on curbing freedom of speech. When UA folded, I found it real easy to join AWF, and all it's content is searchable on the web.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Jon could simply shut down all non-technical forums. Would that work for you? There are certainly other places to have "discussions". But this is a good place because people are generally civil and that doesn't happen out on non-technical social media sites. Although we've actually had a couple of converts (people changing sides), cognitive dissonance has pretty much put a halt on conversions. The more entrenched you are in a non-defensible position the less likely you are to give up and agree to study history to better understand the issues.

I think anyone who thinks Israel should give back Gaza, Samaria, and Judea should explain why the US should not return Puerto Rico to Spain, California, Arizona, New Mexico to Mexico, Guam to Japan, and several islands in the Caribbean to GB who all lost wars to us. Apparently only if you are Israel are you required to give back the spoils of war. Even then Gaza, Samaria, and Judea would not be "free" since they were formerly stolen by Egypt and Jordan They would never go to the "Palestinians".

Personally, I am in favor of returning California

 

[BlueSpruce]

I think anyone who thinks Israel should give back Gaza, Samaria, and Judea should explain why the US should not return Puerto Rico, California, Arizona, New Mexico to Mexico, Guam to Japan, and several islands in the Caribbean to GB who all lost wars to us. Apparently only if you are Israel are you required to give back the spoils of war. Even then Gaza, Samaria, and Judea would not be "free" since they were formerly stolen by Egypt and Jordan They would never go to the "Palestinians".

Personally, I am in favor of returning California

You see? There you go again. You just can't help yourself and let go of it! I thought we were not going to further discuss the Israel/Palestinian issue, especially in this thread. I can't believe you being a moderator are perpetuating that debate here and now, after I stated about 20 posts prior to that thread being frozen that I said everything I wanted to say, stand by my opinions, and bailed out, but you seem to thrive on continuing the chaos. I move for a vote of no confidence in you as a moderator, and that you be removed from that position.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Personally, I am in favor of returning California

I'm not sure that the original owners would want it unless the current tenants cleaned it up a bit.

 

[moke123]

If you step over wherever the arbitrary line is, the mods will take care of it.

I would think there are several affirmative defenses to any violations of the OSA. One really important one would be that a moderator staff is in place and proactive. The biggest problem with that defense is that it is often the moderators deeply involved in the potentially offensive threads.

 

[DickyP]

As far as I can see we have very good moderators who are conscientious (and proactive) but the site does have one problem: the mix of UK and US members and the misunderstandings possibly engendered. A relatively trivial example was when Pat got hot under the collar about the use of the word 'dear', which totally and utterly baffled UK users. This was not anything that would have fallen foul of the new law, but shows the potential for problems. Mods just please go on doing you best and I'm sure we'll be OK.