MOVED: Last sighting Platform 4 Bristol Parkway Friday 13th April

[whole diary]

[grahame]

This topic has been moved to Behind the Counter.

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=19647.0 - available to moderators and admins only.

The content of this thread has been reported as being (whilst lighthearted and clever) a personal attack on a member of the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) team, and has been quarantined while the Coffee Shop team considers this.

[grahame]

This has been a very long evening of personal messages flying around - not only on this subject, which has amicably been discussed between those involved (even if I have also had some less amicable messages from elsewhere, including on other aspects of the forum).  So just a short update (oops - come back to read - this is not short)

It is / was a very hard call indeed on the message originally posted here as to whether or not it constituted a personal attack.

Whenever such a report is received, one of the moderation team does a very quick triage indeed, and if they have any doubt what so even, the thread is moved out of public view while the matter is reviewed.   That's not saying that the report is right - just that it needs to be looked at, and for safety we'll do that out of public view.   By being out of public view, that saves us having to moderate a moving topic a posts are added, and it means that we are not party to what someone believes is a  potential defamation once we have been informed of its presence.

We can then take a further look - multiple members of our team each giving their thoughts, and correspondence with the original poster to understand what the intent of the post was, and perhaps to adjust it so that it's clearly not a defamation, when it can be returned to view.

A second outcome can be that when the moderator team has taken a look, we decide that there's no problem with the post and return it to view.

Another alternative outcome is that it's impractical to update the original post such that it's clearly not defamatory.   That's quite a likely situation with a post written with humour,  as people see that so differently.  And in such a situation, as in this one here, the best thing is to say how much the original was enjoyed while it was briefly viewed, but it will not be returning. In the case of the thread that I'm posting this onto, that's the decision reached.

There have been a handful of threads over the years - and I think I can add this one to the list - that have been removed from public view, but where the decision has been a very difficult one indeed, and the ultimate decision is based on the strategy her on the forum rather than short term tactics.    There is zero admission in the removal of the thread that there as anything wrong with it - but rather a pragmatic acknowledgement that we don't have the legal knowledge or resource to decide one way or the other, and as this isn't a key campaign in any way a tactical withdrawal, with the understanding of the original poster, is the best way forward.

I am utterly aware that this approach leaves me open to various accusations such as censorship and being the mouthpiece for GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), and indeed i have been reminded by personal message this evening that I am open in that way (actually that I have censored the contribution).   I refute the allegations, and can go on and explain why on another day.  Actually, I think I have in the past if anyone can find those old threads??

[JayMac]

Such a shame that only those around today got to read an excellent bit of satire. 

[grahame]

Such a shame that only those around today got to read an excellent bit of satire. 

There is nothing to prevent the original author, or indeed you yourself if you have his permission, reposting it elsewhere on line if he and you feel it should be more widely shared and are happy to risk any consequences.  I do ask that you refrain from directing people towards it from our forum boards, as that would give the same concerns as the original post.

[JayMac]

It's the original poster's excellent work, deserving of praise for its composition, satirical bite and parody. With it spirited away into the ether its somewhat difficult now to share it more widely.

I'm sure the decision taken to remove the post was based on what was believed to be pragmatism. Sometimes though, when one wears many hats, such judgements of pragmatism can be swayed by the hat one wears at different times. And, even if such a decision is made after consulting the team, said team is no doubt fully aware of the boss's various titfers.

Now, that's my perception in this instance. It does leaves me with one nagging thought. Where does this forum's mod and admin team stand on the more robust, serious (that is, said without humourous intent) criticism of the person satired in the removed post? Much of that could be seen as a personal attack too. Do we refrain from calling to account the person with whom the buck stops?

The whys and wherefores of how the post came to be removed are now moot. Even if explained on another day. Although, hearing an explanation from the person with whom the buck stops here would at least be going one better than the subject in the original post.

In summary, I guess the question I'm asking is can this excellent forum be truly independent of the lead operator in the area it covers if the forum owner is inextricably linked to said operator when wearing another hat? I don't know, I could be in a majority of one. It's a thought that has occurred to me from time to time though.

[grahame]

It's the original poster's excellent work, deserving of praise for its composition, satirical bite and parody. With it spirited away into the ether its somewhat difficult now to share it more widely.

I'm sure the decision taken to remove the post was based on what was believed to be pragmatism. Sometimes though, when one wears many hats, such judgements of pragmatism can be swayed by the hat one wears at different times. And, even if such a decision is made after consulting the team, said team is no doubt fully aware of the boss's various titfers.

Now, that's my perception in this instance. It does leaves me with one nagging thought. Where does this forum's mod and admin team stand on the more robust, serious (that is, said without humourous intent) criticism of the person satired in the removed post? Much of that could be seen as a personal attack too. Do we refrain from calling to account the person with whom the buck stops?

The whys and wherefores of how the post came to be removed are now moot. Even if explained on another day. Although, hearing an explanation from the person with whom the buck stops here would at least be going one better than the subject in the original post.

In summary, I guess the question I'm asking is can this excellent forum be truly independent of the lead operator in the area it covers if the forum owner is inextricably linked to said operator when wearing another hat? I don't know, I could be in a majority of one. It's a thought that has occurred to me from time to time though.

The buck stopped and the decision behind the removal of the post has been explained.

The question of my personal view of various GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) managers is something I can choose to address or not as I wish.

The question of forum independence is a good one for discussion and something that I have given great thought to over recent years. In fact I'm so concerned that I raised it at the forum meeting on 7th January. We have had a couple of forum votes since (the one on the ACoRP^▸ (Association of Community Rail Partnerships) issue comes to mind) which have confirmed member's confidence in our team in a secret vote.   As well as asking "is this right", can I ask you to make some suggestions as to what would be better, then we could take a constructive look.  Perhaps I should step aside and hand my shoes over to you to take over?

I would be very surprised if the original poster hadn't kept a copy of the poem. Failing that there will be a copy in our incremental backups for up to a week and at the original poster's request I can supply him a copy.

[JayMac]

I enjoyed my time inside the tent, but prefer being outside now. I have no desire to keep it erected or maintained either.

You keep your shoes grahame. Generally they see you treading the correct path. 

[grahame]

I enjoyed my time inside the tent, but prefer being outside now. I have no desire to keep it erected or maintained either.

You keep your shoes grahame. Generally they see you treading the correct path. 

I will indeed keep my shoes, thank you - but always with an eye to watching that the path is an agreed one, which you confirm.

[eXPassenger]

I read it last night and loved the satire, however I held off commenting on it because I thought it was a little close to the bone.

[Red Squirrel]

For what it's worth, I thoroughly enjoyed the post in question, but totally support the admin team's decision.