Are the Columbuzz.net moderators using their Usage Policy to intimidate and censor commenters? Let’s look at the evidence. The Usage Policy states “… As noted earlier, if this type of action is thought to be happening on this Web site, we reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we may know about you, including your IP address(s)) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from this type of action.” Now this makes perfect sense for legal action with a court order, but for a complaint? Does it make sense for a whistle blowing website which promises anonymity to reveal people’s identity or IP addresses? I have read many web site usage policies, but this is the first time I have ever seen something like this. In my opinion, this policy could be used to intimidate commenters that the moderators don’t like to stop commenting, which again sounds like censorship to me. As an example, in an article from Sept. 23 (http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=4924), you will see the following added by a moderator to another’s comment:
“… ADMIN EDITED IP- 192.158.61.141 Shows as Cummins Fuel Systems”
Now I have to wonder, what is the point of revealing someone’s IP address? Is it to let him know that the moderators know where he works? That the moderators could call his employer to report him? Why even disclose this information in the comment section? Why would fellow commenters care where someone is posting from? I know I don’t. Some may think this is just another petty complaint, but revealing someone’s IP address in a public forum could result in internet hackers trying to break into or attack their computer.
Sometimes, comments are edited by the moderators to remove “uncivil” statements. Here is one example (http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=4924):
My original comment:
Bob said "I was compiling your numerous posts into one to consolidate and accidently deleted a few of them".
You've been doing that a lot to me on here, "accidentally" deleting my posts. Why me? Because I'm not a yes man? Why should I believe you? I don't normally copy my posts to a separate file, so unfortunately I can't resend. I guess I'll have to be more careful in the future.
"So, you play by the rules here, or you don't remain here"
But the rules don't apply to you? I see several examples on this site of you specifically violating the Usage Policy. I would really like Herman to weigh in on this, since he seems like a voice of reason. What's the point of having a Usage Policy if the policy is selectively enforced?
To me, it looks like Bob has let his moderator power get to his head. Will he also let his trustee power get to his head?
And you still haven't answered my question, so I'll repeat. What is the current status (as of today) on the prosecution of Mr. Barkes?
And here’s what it looked like after Mr. Freeman’s editing:
Bob said "I was compiling your numerous posts into one to consolidate and accidently deleted a few of them." You've been doing that a lot to me on here, "accidentally" deleting my posts.
What is the current status (as of today) on the prosecution of Mr. Barkes?
Mr. Freeman wrote that my comment was “off topic and accusatory”. I will agree it was off topic, but almost all of the comments for this article were off topic. And it was definitely accusatory, but I had proof, which I outlined in my first post. He even admitted that he doesn’t always follow the usage policy (“… it is a case of ‘Do as I say, not as I do’. If I wander from the usage policy from time to time, it is unintentional.”). So why was my comment edited? What was so uncivil about stating my opinion? There was no name calling or profanity. All I can say is look at the facts and you will see censorship.
2 comments:
"Dude" I am Jeremy Kirtz; I am one of the administrators on Columbuzz.net. I would like to clear the air about the approval process on Columbuzz.
First - being anonymous is allowed on Columbuzz, 90% of people who post generally don't use their name. We read each comment before it is approved, whereas if we see a repetitive posting of one name we generally approval without reading.
Second - when I see a "new" post, just after another "named" post with the same writing style I draw conclusions to being the same person just changing their name. That is when I am more inclined to deny a comment rather approve it. I believe in the anonymity of the site, but of course being abrasive (intentionally breaking apart based on nothing) without constructive criticism, is ground for me to deny it. I know this statement I made will be shattered into something other than what I really meant.
I believe there is a difference to what Bob is stating to what is "possibly" occurring with an elected official whom should be held accountable to the community’s magnifying glass, whereas Bob is an individual who will be (if elected) under this same scrutiny.
I understand looking at what is said about Mr. Barkes but I also have learned more than what others truly know. Our correspondences with others are vast, in comparison with your back and forth emails. The main purpose to this comment is to take ownership for denying your comments posted.
The IP was posted in one of your comments because the poster did post from Fuel Systems, the point of this was to show regardless of your name used, comment said, doing it on “work” time (may be allowed since Cummins unblocked access to Columbuzz.net months ago) is irrelevant to me, however if you were “Jeff” then it was to just make the commenter think about using an actual name in an earlier comment and then as a different name later wasn’t acceptable.
I know family belonging to Mr. Barkes are defending their father, husband, uncle, whatever his relation to them is commendable but it’s not a personal attack, its political – of course this is just my opinion.
If you post this, thanks if not I understand.
Jeremy, thanks for your comment. I don't delete comments on my blog unless there is profanity or libelous statements. Some of my thoughts:
"First - being anonymous is allowed on Columbuzz, 90% of people who post generally don't use their name. We read each comment before it is approved, whereas if we see a repetitive posting of one name we generally approval without reading."
Then why was my (admittedly fake) identity disclosed after my first article? I knew it would happen, that's why I used a fake name.
"Second - when I see a "new" post, just after another "named" post with the same writing style I draw conclusions to being the same person just changing their name. That is when I am more inclined to deny a comment rather approve it. I believe in the anonymity of the site, but of course being abrasive (intentionally breaking apart based on nothing) without constructive criticism, is ground for me to deny it."
You are reading every comment to figure out if it has the same style as another? Are you psychic? You were totally wrong in my case. I only posted as Former Indiana Resident on your site and then after I created an account, I chose the fake name Bob Smith. I have used NO OTHER names on your website. You can believe what you want, but that's the truth.
"The IP was posted in one of your comments because the poster did post from Fuel Systems, the point of this was to show regardless of your name used, comment said, doing it on “work” time (may be allowed since Cummins unblocked access to Columbuzz.net months ago) is irrelevant to me, however if you were “Jeff” then it was to just make the commenter think about using an actual name in an earlier comment and then as a different name later wasn’t acceptable."
You are making a lot of assumptions here, all of them incorrect. I did not post from Cummins. During my little email exchange with Bob, I was not even on your website. You sound a little paranoid here. Anyone who would dare criticize Bob must be the same commenter? And in my opinion, you have no business disclosing IP addresses NO MATTER WHAT. You can ban IPs like mine from accessing your site, which in my case was petty and vindictive, but it is your right to do so. I only submitted articles and comments, I did not launch a DoS attack on your site.
"I know family belonging to Mr. Barkes are defending their father, husband, uncle, whatever his relation to them is commendable but it’s not a personal attack, its political – of course this is just my opinion."
Not a personal attack? You need to reread some of Bob's articles and rethink that position.
And speaking of libelous statements, you have several on your website. I have offered to provide you a list multiple times, but you have declined. I bet if they were about Bob, they would be deleted immediately. But they are about Fred Barkes, so they stay.
Some final thoughts for you. It looks to me that you and Herman do whatever Bob says/wants. It's like you have only one moderator, not three. And it's ridiculous that the moderators do not have to follow the Usage Policy.
Post a Comment