Accrington Web - View Single Post

Darby · 23-06-2004, 09:20

The technicalities of administering a "Locked or Deleted Thread" is something I am not qualified to comment on. But I am sure Roy will be able to provide something that is acceptable to all.

The subject thread that was deleted was done several hours after the "so-called" offending post. And contained 3 or 4 further replies. It didn't seem to crate an avalanche of rage or excessive postings. I feel that we should have a trial period where deletions are highlighted, noted and the thread locked. If this is unsuccessful, then we could consider an alternative method. Does this seem a reasonable approach?

I am not aware nor are several collegues of mine at the MOD, the Law Society, and Inland Revenue who deal with websites, of any Government directives about what and what not a website is allowed to contain or say or what limitations are imposed. Self impositions are the general norm, but must be clearly stated.
There are several websites that contain severe swear words, irreverent references, and aggressive remarks. They are all in the UK and are free to continue with their internet airing, unhindered by all. So I don't believe that we have anything to fear or to Kow-Tow to. Inference to what is right or wrong is very subjective and cannot be substantiated.

23-06-2004, 09:20	#18
Darby Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Albions End Posts: 691 Liked: 2 times Rep Power: 44	Re: Deletions of Threads and Postings The technicalities of administering a "Locked or Deleted Thread" is something I am not qualified to comment on. But I am sure Roy will be able to provide something that is acceptable to all. The subject thread that was deleted was done several hours after the "so-called" offending post. And contained 3 or 4 further replies. It didn't seem to crate an avalanche of rage or excessive postings. I feel that we should have a trial period where deletions are highlighted, noted and the thread locked. If this is unsuccessful, then we could consider an alternative method. Does this seem a reasonable approach? I am not aware nor are several collegues of mine at the MOD, the Law Society, and Inland Revenue who deal with websites, of any Government directives about what and what not a website is allowed to contain or say or what limitations are imposed. Self impositions are the general norm, but must be clearly stated. There are several websites that contain severe swear words, irreverent references, and aggressive remarks. They are all in the UK and are free to continue with their internet airing, unhindered by all. So I don't believe that we have anything to fear or to Kow-Tow to. Inference to what is right or wrong is very subjective and cannot be substantiated.