SDRplay Community Forum

Paul wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 02, 2019 7:24 am

So, in conclusion, I would like to second any request for the company to revert to the previous and from a user's point of view, totally satisfactory way of controlling this valuable resource.

I have been admin on several forums over the years. One thing I have learnt with users, regardless of rules etc there is a "If I can, I will" mentality with some people. Some like to see how far they can push things until they end up on the chopping block.

Putting a forum into moderation mode has two main impacts:
1. The forum is more orderly and harmonious.
2. Overall forum members tend to 'dislike' post moderation, as such it typically (not always) results in a decline of members posting.
At the end of the day, the said owners/admin of the forum have to go with what they feel provides the best outcome for the forum.

The biggest problem with moderation after the post have gone live is the damage is already done, and there are usually a large number of replies following on. Thus the thread can become disjointed (for want of a better term) and hard to follow, as you have gaps in the thread from removing any offending posts.

Whether I, or anyone else likes/dislikes post moderation is really insignificant, the owners/admin are the ones who have to make the call for the better good of all, not just a few.

This is becoming a really interesting debate and I am glad our attention is focussed on life, rather than on radio, just for once! It is good we are allowed to carry on on this subject, I believe it will improve the spirit of our Community.

Thomas

I think, its in general a very bad idea to have a pre-moderation on the forum. Such a big delay between writing and publishing immediately kills the atmosphere of the communication, when you need to wait 20-60 minutes for the post to be approved. So, if the owners want a forum to turn into a dull dead zone where nobody wants to talk, hmm, ok, they can do it very easy.

I understand that some spammers can use forum for placing viagra ads or other stuff, but button like "Send a complain" should be enough to prevent this. Ideally forum system should be self-moderated by the community and should not require specific surveillance from a dedicated person.

I wish to examine here some practical consequences of the new preventive censorship policy, as they appear after a little more than one month after it has been applied.

- There are problems when one has to correct/ amend his post. The correction has to be approved too, so in the time span it takes for the amended post to be approved, the post simply disappears, confusing the readers, who do not reckon why a post they had read has disappeared and then they see it back again the next day.

- But what happens if the amended post is NOT approved? Then the post gets simply cancelled for good and the unhappy author only receives the "not approved" notice to console him: the cherry on the cake is that, if he did not take the precaution to store a copy, his post is forever lost.

- But the worst problem, in my opinion, is that Tech_Support, representing the official authority of SDRplay and also of the Forum Members, always expresses by necessity an official opinion when a post is accepted or rejected. The main difficulty that has been experienced and which has caused the change in policy, has been that of Forum Members writing posts making no technical sense, or better explained, making utter technical nonsense. Tech_Support, representing the position of SDRplay, explicitly refused to take any action when this happens. The result is that, any time technical nonsense comes about, but otherwise respects "forum rules", Tech_Support is obliged to APPROVE, THEREBY IMPLICITLY and EXPLICITLY ENDORSING NONSENSE AND ERRORS THAY MAY MISLEAD OTHER FORUM MEMBERS. If SDRplay takes the responsibility for prior censoring, they MUST also take the responsibility for what is being published.
This seems to me a "lose - lose" situation, where all concerned can expect to have our Forum ridiculed by any malicious, or simply malevolent party, without having no way to defend our Community, while also having our perfectly good posts censored.

Thomas

The result is that, any time technical nonsense comes about, but otherwise respects "forum rules", Tech_Support is obliged to APPROVE, THEREBY IMPLICITLY and EXPLICITLY ENDORSING NONSENSE AND ERRORS THAY MAY MISLEAD OTHER FORUM MEMBERS.

This statement is absolute nonsense. By approving a post, we are not explicitly or even implicitly approving the technical content, we are simply accepting that it does not violate the forum rules. We do not offer an opinion on the technical content of the post and nor should we. We have been very clear about this despite the statement made by Thomas. Judging the technical content is for others to do not us.

Sincerely

Tech_Support

I am sorry to contradict the opinion expressed by Tech_ Support, whose position, with due respect, is simply untenable by way of logic. With the act of approval, Tech_Support officially endorses the judgement the post is fit for publication and therefore is not damaging the Forum Community in any sense. Furthermomre this judgement is presently passed based on "forum rules" that have been shown to be practically contradictory (to past and present implementation) and therefore non-existent. Thus Tech_Support has still to explain on what basis he exerts his action: surely the "rules" he mentioned are not suitable, T,his is clear even by his own admission in a recent post.

If the general criterion must be that of not approving posts damaging either the phycological well being of Forum Members, which damage would be caused by "inflammatory" statements, or their practical well being, due to the propagation of quack technical information, then the present policy encourages the publication of quack technical information, while at the same time tying the hands of those whose attitude would be that of disproving erroneous information, thus defending our Community.

I am sorry, but, with respect, there is no escape. One cannot enforce censorship and then adopt arbitrary criteria for its enforcement and its limitation. Either no preventive censorship, or if it must be applied, it must be applied in a way that does not defy logic.

Thomas

Ok, as the original starter of this thread, some things to keep in mind......

1) I only asked why the moderation because I thought that perhaps something was wrong with my account and that maybe for some reason it only applied to me. Didn't mean to poke the hornet's nest .

2) This forum belongs to SDRPlay, and they pay the server bills. As such, it is their right to operate it as they see fit. Their forum, their rules. Simple.

3) Many if not most companies these days do not have forums at all due to the time required to moderate and answer posts etc., and they simply don't want to deal with it. Much easier to just set up a FaceBook page and answer questions. So I for one am glad to have a forum at all.

Now back to listening with the RSP1A. .

SDRplay have stated their position in regard to moderation of this forum quite clearly.
And whilst many of us including myself very much regret the current position and would no doubt like me, wish to see a return to the previous policy, possibly with members becoming more proactive with respect to reporting obviously undesirable posts that obviously or may breach forum rules.
Although the forum remains a valuable resource, I am very sorry to see fewer of what I and no doubt many others, saw as valuable contributions/contributors disappear from it.
However, the owners of the forum must presumably have regard to their legal position, which from a cursory internet search would seem to be quite complex.
Here is one example (but please do your own research if so inclined, but I for one will not comment on it further): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v ... et_Service

It's always better in my opinion. I know that it feels like that it is not needed but there are a lot of spammers and it is needed.

Thought a lot about this problem, but how can you let allow very clear tech errors to go in if you are examining posts? Sorrry but seems the examiner is ignorant or something, better do nothing.