Removed threads section?

I'd like to believe I have a decent idea of what this forum's rules are, yet I'm a always a bit shaken by ANY thread removal. I may be wrong but I don't see any announcments regarding this and I find that quite disturbing. Personally I don't believe that absolute majority of the EVENTUALLY removed threads intentionally violated any of the rules. But if indeed they did then I think there should be an additional

"Removed Threads"

link added, where a one sentence explanation would tell interested parties what had happened. I don't mean to complicate things but I learn not only from reading what's here and by sometimes responding to some, but also from checking responses of others which could address not only original thread but my own contribution as well. When all of that gets suddenly dumped it makes me wonder who offended whom and why the axe ultimately landed. None of us is perfect and we do make mistakes, but if a moderator feels so strong about removing an entire thread then he should also let others know why. Or perhaps he does.

This is an interesting point.

Sometimes, a thread will take a bad turn, feelings will run high, and unfortunate or offensive comments will be made. In one way or another, responses will violate the documented guidelines. In these cases, I try to trim responses to remove the unfortunate language, but in a way that preserves the value of the response.

For example, "You blockhead, don't you know that . . .", becomes "Don't you know that . . ."

If the trimming is any more subtle than this, I tend to remove the entire response. I don't want to take the responsibility of altering the meaning of the response.

In these cases, I don't make public announcements that anything has been changed. Some will notice, but they'll also notice why. I don't like to bring attention to the fact that feelings have gotten out of hand. It distracts from the value of the thread. But, I will send an explanetory note to the individual with the purpose of considerately helping them to understand the guidelines. We want people to contribute.

There've been numerous times where people will request that their own response be removed, because they got out of hand. In these cases, I will oblige. In other instances, other participants in a thread will try to mediate in a respectful way.

Bear in mind, comments that involve character assassinations and unprofessional language can be personally offensive or even damaging to individuals. These are the two situations where, as a moderator, I am most likely to act.

There was one case on photo.net where the thread regarding a well known photographic figure had gotten so out of hand, I felt it was necessary to remove the entire thread. It being obvious that an entire thread had been removed, I opened a new thread that I hope diplomatically explained the removal. As I recall, even this second thread got out of hand! So, I removed the second thread without further explanation. This is the only time that I've removed an entire thread. It was really bazaar.

Witold's suggestion is interesting. If changes are made, then people are justifiably curious about the original comments. It's difficult for people to defend their own comments, if they're no longer available. On the other side of the question, retaining original comments in some way can further the damage that they might do.

As a moderator, I hate to make changes. Making changes in an independent forum like this one is a serious business. From my perspective, this site belongs to the participants. So, not everything that violates the guidelines will necessarily be removed. I can recall two recent instances. The guidelines are drawn to encourage contribution, not to limit it.

I'm certainly interested in hearing other comments and points of view about the suggestion that Witold has raised.

I think Neil's approach to moderation is fair, and I wouldn't like to see a "removed threads" section. It's best if such things are just removed, the posters involved are notified, and everyone else can move on. Endless threads about forum policy when threads are removed are damaging to the overall atmosphere of the list and turn participants away. Some might call this "censorship," but I would just call it "editing."

On the internet every person is free to start up his or her own website or list, but when one participates in someone else's list, then one plays by the rules of that list.

Any thread which is completely out of topic, degenerates into verbally abusive language, or is a distraction from the simple exchange of factual information intended by the forum should be removed. The participants need not be notified. The list will not suffer and, in most instances, will benefit by the retention of its integrity.

It is like a picture with compositional elements that stick out past the edge of the image, cut them off to retain the purity of the image. Cropping is a good tool. It would be better to not have to crop at all, but in reality, there are few people who have mastered this art of purity. I have noticed that those who have this mastery of "will" tend to give simple, succinct answers based on experience, not broad-based fishing expeditions of opinion.

I do not go along with "Post Modernistic Relativism" or the belief that all opinions are equally valid. This leads to anarchy and a lack of cohesive untiy, the anithesis of a forum in the first place.

It was my understanding that Q.T. was the moderator - when did that change?

Neil: you are cool, objective, fair and do a great job, for which thanks. Witold however makes a good point. An explanation following every removal should be followed with an explanation. Doing this removes any tinge of arbitrariness and unfair censorship and teaches other would be posters what is not allowed and why. You do not have to write the notice everytime as the reasons always boil down to 2 or 3 and for those you can have forms that can be sent when appropriate. I too agree with Tim´s opinion on relativism. Neither all opinions are equally valid nor are they all needed in this forum.

Matt, when I retired from moderation on the LF Forum on photo.net this summer, I meant to do so on any LF Forum. I am just on the moderation team now to help this Forum get a good start, but expect my role to be secondary to that of Neil and Rob.

I wholeheartedly agree with Neil's point of view on this one, and I believe that it is thoroughly in keeping with the ethos of this forum, so skillfully nurtured by Tuan.

It has to be said that the excellent atmosphere of this forum makes it a lot easier to moderate than photo.net.

A 'removed threads section' would negate the purpose of removing a thread -- ending something that shouldn't have started. Such a section is not wise; please don't implement it.

I think I owe a clarification to my original post.

I have never doubted Neil's moderating skills (in fact I think he's been doing it superbly) nor my intent was to suggest such.

By "removed threads section" I only meant a listing by thread title and a quick explanation as to why it was removed (as oppose to copying over the whole thing as some responses may be suggesting) so I don't see how that would in any way negate the actual removal of a thread.

The main reason behind this idea was, that no matter how bad a discussion could get, there is still some good info in it and when it's no longer available it just makes me wonder why. Since most of us can't follow this forum day in day out, it's really easy to miss out on the flame war that flushed the whole thing down the drain. If at all possible, I would rather have removal of just the offending responses but I realize this is not always possible.