Anonimity. Why?

[seekerofwisdom]

If there are those in the NHS that have a fear of making their comments and feelings known with fear of retribution from the authorities, then frankly we have ALL lost because free speech ends here

The minute you start to moderarate a forum, free speech becomes stifled. Hence TFS's universal appeal.

Cynical SOW

[davidh]

Jul 23, 2009 8:19:37 GMT seekerofwisdom said:

If there are those in the NHS that have a fear of making their comments and feelings known with fear of retribution from the authorities, then frankly we have ALL lost because free speech ends here

The minute you start to moderarate a forum, free speech becomes stifled. Hence TFS's universal appeal.

Cynical SOW

That's a point of view - nonsense of course, but a point of view.
If a forum is unmoderarated ;D, by definition anyone can post anything. That's why most of the threads on TFS end up either as a slanging match, or FHP-bashing.

[Admin]

A strange creature is free speech.

I don't have the freedom to stand in the street and shout obscenities, nor the freedom to say anything considered to "incite race hatred". Nor do I have the freedom to defame somebody elses character under UK law.

Everybody wants free speech for themselves, yet many abhor the way others use THEIR free speech. DTT has come under heavy critisism for "bullying". Is he not merely exercising HIS free speech?

Anonymity AND a lack of moderation frees one from the constraints of society, courtesy and indeed the law. But is this a good thing?

Actually that does not matter. The significant question is

"will it build a forum where people can enjoy a civilized, intelligent and professional atmosphere."

That is the stated aim of Pod answers. And based on hard experience I suggest the answer is no.

So whilst anonymity is freely permitted, moderation seems to be required to keep discussion within the standards of civility, respect and legality one would expect in, say, a conversation at a conference.

But as cynical SOW points out, if anyone feels unable to restrain themselves from personal attacks on other forum members (which are the ONLY posts I have moderated), TFS exists as an alternative. This is not TFS. I'm not trying to make it TFS. If the mission statement above does not appeal and you prefer the absolute freedom offered by TFS then obviously you should use TFS.

Different strokes for different folks.

Kind regards
Robert

[seekerofwisdom]

"That's a point of view, nonsense of course". Well I think that breaks the rules of this forum don't you?

However you have noticed an increase in the average number of visitors, what do you put it down to?

Could not be the introduction of the seeker facility, that's the only real change?

Oh and the change of ownership?

Shy who had decided to stop posting but could not resist this one.

Oh and Bill in your comment about reasons for Posting anon I think you should have said IMO as that's the only justification for such a bold statement.

[Admin]

"That's a point of view, nonsense of course". Well I think that breaks the rules of this forum don't you?

No. Its a comment on the point of view, not a personal attack on the poster. I've no problem with attacking the post, just not the poster.

For eg, in the recent thread on deregistration and the prof bodies. Bill Posted a view on organisations, that was OK. Somebody else challenged the accuracy and validity of that view, and THAT was OK. Then someone made a comment about Bill and David (personally) having an axe to grind. NOT ok.

Oh and Bill in your comment about reasons for Posting anon I think you should have said IMO as that's the only justification for such a bold statement.

Fair comment. IMO is a very useful little acronym. IMO.

Regards
Robert

[seekerofwisdom]

A strange creature is free speech.

I don't have the freedom to stand in the street and shout obscenities,

But you can sit in a room and be obscene as yo want if the fellow occupiers do not object.


nor the freedom to say anything considered to "incite race hatred".

Of course you could add religious and sexual orientation to that but the key word is 'incite'


Nor do I have the freedom to defame somebody elses character under UK law.


But you do, it is then up to the person defamed to take civil action against the perpetrator.


Everybody wants free speech for themselves, yet many abhor the way others use THEIR free speech. DTT has come under heavy critisism for "bullying". Is he not merely exercising HIS free speech?

As you bought DTT up I assume it is within the rules to pass comment? I believe everyone would support Derek's right to free speech, the allegations of 'bullying' are made when he steps out of the realms of 'debate' even debate DDT style and into the area of 'telling people they are wrong, 'because he says so'. And that if you look back through his history is nearly all the time.

Anonymity AND a lack of moderation frees one from the constraints of society, courtesy and indeed the law. But is this a good thing?

Actually that does not matter.

You ask a question then answer it, IMO naughty especially when the premise is not proven.

The significant question is
Quote:
"will it build a forum where people can enjoy a civilized, intelligent and professional atmosphere."
That is the stated aim of Pod answers. And based on hard experience I suggest the answer is no.

Well threads do get heated on tfs but seldom do they have to be pulled, I guess it boils down to the robustness of the posters.

So whilst anonymity is freely permitted, moderation seems to be required to keep discussion within the standards of civility, respect and legality one would expect in, say, a conversation at a conference.

Robert while you say anonymity is freely permitted, many of the established members of this forum clearly resent it and therefore are unable to enter into meaningful debate. It seems like a stand off is developing. Not too sure what conferences you have been to but I'm not convinced they always adhere to your standards.

But as cynical SOW points out, if anyone feels unable to restrain themselves from personal attacks on other forum members (which are the ONLY posts I have moderated),

In which case you may have a very personnel definition of 'attack'.

TFS exists as an alternative. This is not TFS. I'm not trying to make it TFS. If the mission statement above

a forum where people can enjoy a civilized, intelligent and professional atmosphere."

This sorry sounds a bit cosy for a debating forum, I think Bel has shown a new side to her when her replies have been questioned, to me that is how debate should work.

does not appeal and you prefer the absolute freedom offered by TFS then obviously you should use TFS.

Different strokes for different folks.

Excellent advice

Shy.

[seekerofwisdom]

"That's a point of view, nonsense of course". Well I think that breaks the rules of this forum don't you?


No. Its a comment on the point of view, not a personal attack on the poster. I've no problem with attacking the post, just not the poster.


On that we must agree to disagree, the attack is equally on the poster as the post as it was the poster that composed the post therefore the poster is shown to be someone who talks nonsense?

When a famous name is appended to the comment the insult is IMO multiplied.


For eg, in the recent thread on deregistration and the prof bodies. Bill Posted a view on organisations, that was OK. Somebody else challenged the accuracy and validity of that view, and THAT was OK. Then someone made a comment about Bill and David (personally) having an axe to grind. NOT ok.

But it is true, if you want to rattle Bill or David's cages mention the SCP in glowing terms, and stand back. Does not truth have a position in moderating criteria?

Now if they posted under a pseudonym their personnel baggage would not go before them and they may have got away with it.

Quote:

Oh and Bill in your comment about reasons for Posting anon I think you should have said IMO as that's the only justification for such a bold statement.


Fair comment. IMO is a very useful little acronym. IMO.


Just a few 'joining words' can make a great difference to the tone of a post without removing the message IMO.

Shy
Regards
Robert

[davidh]

Lets look at a fact or two.

Someone posted "The minute you start to moderarate a forum, free speech becomes stifled. Hence TFS's universal appeal"
To which I replied that this was nonsense.

Actually free speech is stifled by unmoderation.
When people can be as rude as they like on a forum a small coterie of regular posters (bullies IMO ;D) will generally continue to post on whichever topic is current flavour of the month - it could be FHP-bashing, it could be Shaun-bashing, it could even be DH-bashing. New posters may get a look in but are soon flamed.

"Hence TFS's universal appeal"
That would include the latest posting on that forum then?
"Why am I" to which he/she answers himself "such a tosspott".



When I moderated here I noticed that certain people questioned moderation. methods of moderation, and my ability to moderate fairly. These are all tactics designed to unsettle a moderator (IMO ;D) and I know Robert will already have sussed this.

May I now just correct the assertion that I have a beef with the SCP?
I don't - I have my own opinion of the organisation, but I don't have any kind of problem with them. This was already pointed out, at length, on TFS and probably here too. I spoke with Ralph Graham in his last year as Chairman and we had a perfectly amicable conversation. He actually wanted to meet with me but I declined.

I have commented on the stupidity (IMO ;D) of having another tier of representation within the SCP. This is a typical NHS-management solution (IMO ;D).
"Things aren't working - lets get some more management".
Or it could have been
"Things aren't working - some people aren't happy, lets form a Delegate Assembly so they think they have some say in how we are running ourselves".

Non-members are equally free to comment (and they do) about SMAE or the Institute, so where's the difference?

[seekerofwisdom]

David, I should be fixing my toilet but:

Not sure how to stay within the rules but I’m trying.

look at a fact or two.

Try as I may I can only find one fact, in bold.

Someone posted "The minute you start to moderarate a forum, free speech becomes stifled. Hence TFS's universal appeal"
To which I replied that this was nonsense.


Actually free speech is stifled by unmoderation.

This is opinion.

When people can be as rude as they like on a forum a small coterie of regular posters (bullies IMO ) will generally continue to post on whichever topic is current flavour of the month - it could be FHP-bashing, it could be Shaun-bashing, it could even be DH-bashing. New posters may get a look in but are soon flamed.

Opinion.

"Hence TFS's universal appeal"

Sorry what are you saying?

That would include the latest posting on that forum then?
"Why am I" to which he/she answers himself "such a tosspott".



As you are well aware TFS has had security problems and that post you chose is just such a problem, who knows who or why they are doing it?

When I moderated here I noticed that certain people questioned moderation. methods of moderation, and my ability to moderate fairly. These are all tactics designed to unsettle a moderator (IMO ) and I know Robert will already have sussed this.

This is almost approaching a ‘fact’, but what is wrong with challenging authority, is it not the basis of most of British culture?

May I now just correct the assertion that I have a beef with the SCP?
I don't - I have my own opinion of the organisation, but I don't have any kind of problem with them.

I guess we have to accept that, however your assertion in the main conflicts with your action/writings.e

This was already pointed out, at length, on TFS and probably here too.

See above. Your opinion I think it would be fair to say is pretty negative and on occasions quite hostile, if that is ‘not having a problem’ so be it.


I spoke with Ralph Graham in his last year as Chairman and we had a perfectly amicable conversation. He actually wanted to meet with me but I declined.

I think as did many people. It was very difficult not to have an amicable conversation with Ralph that’s the way he performs. Why did you decline?

I have commented on the stupidity (IMO ) of having another tier of representation within the SCP. This is a typical NHS-management solution (IMO ).
"Things aren't working - lets get some more management".
Or it could have been
"Things aren't working - some people aren't happy, lets form a Delegate Assembly so they think they have some say in how we are running ourselves".


Unfortunately you are talking history here and despite some very serious reservations by some fairly radical members it has evolved to have more significance in the governance of the Society. Consequences of the debate over the DA are now coming on stream, time will tell if they make a difference.

Non-members are equally free to comment (and they do) about SMAE or the Institute, so where's the difference?

I have no issue with people commenting on other organizations, but they should limit their comments to what they can back up?

IMO all very reasonable?

Now where was that second fact?

Shy


L

[dtt]

Shy

David, I should be fixing my toilet but:

Not sure how to stay within the rules but I’m trying.

Very informative but wholly unnecessary information

As you bought DTT up I assume it is within the rules to pass comment? I believe everyone would support Derek's right to free speech, the allegations of 'bullying' are made when he steps out of the realms of 'debate' even debate DDT style and into the area of 'telling people they are wrong, 'because he says so'. And that if you look back through his history is nearly all the time.

When I was at Craig Paynes boot camp, he made a comment " when people tell me I'm wrong or challenge my beliefs in something, I ask them to prove me wrong"

I agree with that statement,but do it without insult and innuendo please.

I will stand by my comments ( however robust) and argue my point, but I don't have any time for bovine excrement or hidden agenda's.

This is a talking shop ( as are all forums) nothing serious just a debating chamber.

Perhaps some should remember that and lighten up on their positions and keep the spite out of it and remain on topic ??

cheers
Derek

[billliggins]

Hello male Seeker of Wisdom who joined in July 2009 (above) - this is a reason that I oppose annonymous posting in general.

I am sorry that I did not add "In my opinion" to my posting. I did state 'speaking for myself' which I thought indicated that it was my opinion. However, I have been taken to task by another Seeker of Wisdom for using acronyms, so IMO, according to that 'SOW' is not appropriate - Oh dear.

Just have a look at the thread 'Why am I' on 'That Foot Site' for a reason that I oppose annonymous postings.

W J Liggins

[seekerofwisdom]

Hello male Seeker of Wisdom who joined in July 2009 (above) - this is a reason that I oppose annonymous posting in general.

Bill like David you just have not understood the seeker log in.

Is it a bit too difficult to understand that it is not one person and that as it has evolved, very quickly, a request has been made for users of the login to identify themselves within the text. I think if you look at it they do!


I am sorry that I did not add "In my opinion" to my posting. I did state 'speaking for myself' which I thought indicated that it was my opinion. However, I have been taken to task by another Seeker of Wisdom for using acronyms, so IMO, according to that 'SOW' is not appropriate - Oh dear.

I know you work in the midlands but you do not seem to have the innate 'sarcasm' gene?

Just have a look at the thread 'Why am I' on 'That Foot Site' for a reason that I oppose annonymous postings.


No like David that is very very sad, it's an impostor, who knows where from someone with good computer skills, like DDT or his diabetic mate?

Come on Bill you can rise above this rubbish you have a history of good debate, put your prejudice aside join in the challenge, even initiate a thread, possibly about Podiatric surgery, BUPA, or even the merits of the Institute.

I'm interested to hear the details of the Institute's new course, content cost tutors qualifications, loads lets share?

Shy.


W J Liggins

[seekerofwisdom]

Shy


Quote:
David, I should be fixing my toilet but:

Not sure how to stay within the rules but I’m trying.


Very informative but wholly unnecessary information


Perhaps for you O lightness but others may be interested, anyway it is going very well.


Quote:
As you bought DTT up I assume it is within the rules to pass comment? I believe everyone would support Derek's right to free speech, the allegations of 'bullying' are made when he steps out of the realms of 'debate' even debate DDT style and into the area of 'telling people they are wrong, 'because he says so'. And that if you look back through his history is nearly all the time.


When I was at Craig Paynes boot camp, he made a comment " when people tell me I'm wrong or challenge my beliefs in something, I ask them to prove me wrong"

I agree with that statement,but do it without insult and innuendo please.

Ah good old Craigy, bet you are bestist buddies now? So what do you think of him slagging off 2D footplate orthosis devices? Judith repeatedly told you you were wrong, without innuendo or insult, did you listen?

I will stand by my comments ( however robust) and argue my point, but I don't have any time for bovine excrement or hidden agenda's.


Hey are you talking about Bull shit? Standing by one's comments is not the same as supporting them with good evidence. One is opinion the other is informed debate.


This is a talking shop ( as are all forums) nothing serious just a debating chamber.

Well you have certainly enlightened me there, talking shop or debating chamber, and yes obviously 'nothing serious.

Perhaps some should remember that and lighten up on their positions and keep the spite out of it and remain on topic ??

Was that a note in your diary or a suggestion to the forum?

Ever so serious Shy.

Who has nicked 'Our Karma'?

cheers
Derek
Link to Post - Back to Top IP: Logged
[image]

[billliggins]

You failed to understand my point Shy. If people were willing to post over their own names, then the sitaution now seen on 'Thatfootsite' would not exist.

Sadly, because whoever you are, I bear you no ill will, I cannot engage in debate with you. I will answer sensible postings but to request a known individual to engage in debate with an unknown individual is just a little presumptious.

Bill Liggins

[seekerofwisdom]

You failed to understand my point Shy. If people were willing to post over their own names, then the sitaution now seen on 'Thatfootsite' would not exist.


With respect the situation on TFS at the moment would not be altered by your obsession with names, it has been breached!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Sadly, because whoever you are, I bear you no ill will

That sounds almost religeous, I too bear you no ill.

, I cannot engage in debate with you.

A bit like the Israilies and Arabs? Still as long as you are happy with yourself and I am happy with myself (Gestalt stuff ) all is good. Do we really need to debate?


I will answer sensible postings but to request a known individual to engage in debate with an unknown individual is just a little presumptuous

Sorry I corrected your spelling.

I repeat, I am not at all interested in your name I am however interested in good debate.

I am starting to believe it will not despite Roberts best efforts be found here.

Shy


Bill Liggins