Should the forum site be censored?

Background and objectives: 

Since the beginning, almost zero censoring of posts here on the forum site has ever taken place. The problem comes when some posts may appear to be damaging or divisive. But who should decide whether that's the case? Short of putting it to a vote on each occasion, which would clearly be impractical, there is no way that all members could be involved in such a decision.

The current policy is basically one of zero censorship except where a post might result in legal action against the DAG, site administration or the author of a post. Should that policy continue? If it is to change, then who should decide what's allowed on the site and what isn't? DST? A hybrid approach might be to elect an individual or team as censors.

We de have the possibility of providing a feature to allow individual members to "flag" posts as needing review. So, it would be possible for a system to be implemented where, for example, more than a certain number of "complaints" about a post caused it to be automatically removed. They could later still be reviewed by whoever were responsible for the final decision.

Continue "zero censorship" policy
68% (48 votes)
DST should have absolute control over content of the forum site
10% (7 votes)
Elect a separate individual or team to perform censorship
3% (2 votes)
Remove posts automatically, based on a minimum number of "complaints"
20% (14 votes)
Some other solution (details in comment please)
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 71
Groups:
  •   
    Login to post comments
      
Added the option: "Some other

Added the option: "Some other solution (details in comment please)" - you can cancel your vote and re-vote if appropriate.

Posted by ng on Tue, 21/07/2009 - 01:28
I've reactivated this poll.

I've reactivated this poll.

Posted by ng on Tue, 21/07/2009 - 01:02
This poll now closed.

This poll now closed. Zero-censorship policy remains in place.

Posted by ng on Sat, 27/06/2009 - 19:01
Elgee, apologies - I was

Elgee, apologies - I was intending to be helpful. I appreciate that everyone is in a difficult situation here having lost access to funds, and trying to earn a crust and to help out with DAG/HNW without pay.
I wasn't intending to be critical.
Everyone is under pressure and I sympathise with the HNW and the DAG people and their respective positions.
This clearly causes stress and tension, and I hope that all concerned can resolve conflicts and work together..

Posted by manx-person on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 11:55
Quite right we all have the

Quite right we all have the ability to censor what we read by ignoring it. Surely that should be enough.

Posted by TAZMAN on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 11:43
Confidence in DST - copy of

Confidence in DST - copy of my comment posted in the other poll...

It's not about confidence in DST

I think it's important not to misread this poll, nor the related poll - it's about correct policy and not level of confidence in DST. Indeed, if we ran a poll asking for a "vote of confidence" in DST, I have little doubt that the result would be a very high level of confidence. Surely most if not all of us agree that DST are doing great work - the only issue here is whether censorship of content on the forum site would be acceptable to members.

Posted by ng on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 10:02
@elgee - The point is, I

@elgee - The point is, I think - can Adrienne's group negociate better terms for themselves - to the detriment of GBP50,000 - GBP400,000 group - if they get 3 seats on Creditors Committee?

Posted by sabi Star on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 09:24
@ sabi Star.... have you seen

@ sabi Star....

have you seen sleeplessnight's comments? In case they get lost...

Quote:
........................r the statements in liebanks post are factually incorrect and verging on ridiculous.

The actions of a handful of individuals have been continually destructive to the overall objective of DAG. I say this as a depositor who's suffered alongside all other members of DAG and :

As one third of what was the London Team alongside Ziggy and Teapot.

As a member of the DST who has been constantly involved with ALL issues concerned with DAG.

As a member of DST who has been party to information beyond the remit of liebank and HNW.

As someone who appointed the lawyers for DAG .

As someone whose name has been read out in court at each hearing on behalf of DAG .

As somebody who was responsible for the creation of the factual public site.

As someone who was part of DST efforts that were entirely and solely responsible (despite false claims) for the 3rd class of voters that succeeded in defeating the SoA.

As someone who attempted to highlight to the HNW group that IOMT were only on a self preservation exercise and implored the HNW not to cut across DAG legal and lobbying moves.

As someone who has consistently tried to enlighten HNW to the fact that supporting the SoA was a foolish act on their part and detrimental to depositors despite their continuation to do so.

As someone who tried consistently to warn HNW where they were duplicating effort and giving loopholes to IOMG.

As someone who has been responsible for mailing out press release on behalf of DAG since October.

As someone who has been responsible for building correspondence on behalf of DAG with all and any financial bodies we deemed as necessary to correspond with.

As somebody who has liaised with journalists and politicians on a daily basis October.

As someone who put their name and personal number on the PR that goes to ALL national and international press on a daily basis since October.

As somebody who has an endless list of erroneous decisions by HNW representatives that have been destructive to DAG, but thankfully will have little impact eventually.

As somebody who is very proud to be a part of DST: a group of people who work night and day for the efforts of DAG

I would like to highlight that there is far more involved in acting in the best interests of depositors than posting a contentious blog and falsely claiming resposibilty for efforts they were not part of.

I would also like to highlight that there is far more to putting oneself OUT THERE than posting a C.V on a website!

I am extremely distressed that we continue to deal with these internal politics and that members who have been the cause of them still have not understood how destructive it is for the the perception of DAG as a cohesive force.

DO 'HNW' REALISE HOW DESTRUCTIVE USING THE TERM 'HIGH NET WORTH' IS TO THE EFFORTS OF NINE MONTHS OF LOBBYING AND PR THAT HAVE ATTEMPTED TO PROVE WE ARE NOT TYPICALLY WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS

THANKFULLY DAG CONTINUE TO GAIN SUPPORT IN NUMBER AND VALUE

Posted by Lucky Jim on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 09:11
Sabi: I repeat below what I

Sabi: I repeat below what I posted elsewhere on the forum.

I support and have always supported the "HNW group" having a representative on the CC, namely Gavin. I think this view is also that of the DST. My objection is to Adrienne's group having more than one seat on the CC, and indeed proposing 3.

DAG includes well over a thousand members who are above the DCS limit and at least many hundreds who are "high net worth" if, by this term, we mean depositors with several 100 thousand or more savings in KSFIOM. The HNW depositors within DAG need to be distiguished from Adrienne's "HNW group", which has approx. 150 members. You will note that the title of Adrienne's posting is "HNW Group Proxy and Relationship with DAG/DST". In it, she clearly distinguishes her "HNW group" from DAG and the DAG Strategy Team. Her "HNW group" is not the same as the group of HNW depositors within DAG. Adrienne does not speak for the majority of HNW depositors in DAG and while her "HNW group" utilises DAG's forum, it has been and increasingly continues to function not as a DAG sub-group but as an offshoot of DAG and separate from DAG with a different agenda.

In case this is not clear enough, DAG's proposed CC members are ALL HNW depositors, but they are not members of Adrienne's "HNW group". However, at least two of them once were.

In summary, there is DAG, within which is a large group of HNW depositors. DAG does not treat that group as a separate entity, because it tries to act in the best interests of all depositors. Once within DAG, but by their own design now clearly outside, is a separate entity comprising a small sub-sub-group of DAG's HNW sub-group, called Adrienne's "HNW group", which wants to be treated in a special way with its own representatives on the CC and its own legal representation (although not on the record in any proceedings of which we are aware). Adrienne's members are always welcome back under the DAG umbrella, and I suspect many of them believe that they are under that umbrella anyway, but it appears that the organisers of the "HNW group" want to keep them separate.

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 08:56
Ridiculous isn't it? What she

Ridiculous isn't it? What she wrote is relevant to all depositors, not just those with over a couple of hundred thousand.

Posted by chris watson on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 08:47
Correction - I see Adrienne's

Correction - I see Adrienne's post was moved to - Over 500,000 - group - not completely deleted.

Posted by sabi Star on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 08:43
Manx, give me a break over

Manx, give me a break over the analogy. It was not intended to be subjected to an exhaustive analysis and was the best I could do at about 4am in the morning having not slept that night or the night before due to having to work through the night in order to meet my commitments.

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 08:38
As I asked on Adrienne's post

As I asked on Adrienne's post - before it was completely deleted - what is the difference between the interests of the HNW group and the rest of us who are not asking for DCS? I think we should know. I was not able to stay on site to see reply to my question (having spent the best part of 2 days earlier - looking at it)
What are the "efforts" of DST and DAG or HNW? Does it matter which group has 3 seats on creditors' committee - if so - why?
I also think we should know why the 2 groups cannot get on. Is it a question of which legal advice is taken and whether DAG will only act on advise from Edwin Coe?
We have had zero control about getting our money back so far - when and how much is not in our hands - so a united front is required. Our number are depleted now by people with under GBP50,000 and the DCS.

Posted by sabi Star on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 08:21
Come on, elgee's analogy is

Come on, elgee's analogy is rubbish.

The BBC is a public service overseen by an independent panel set up by the government, that is funded by a compulsory license fee and has a 10 year charter setting out how it should be run and regulated.

This chat site is nothing of the sort and the idea some self-appointed, unknown individuals can somehow own and police it, just because they don't like what others say, is pathetic.

Posted by chris watson on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 07:31
I can see elgee's point here,

I can see elgee's point here, and having met quite a few of the people in DAG and HNW in person I am surprised that this matter has escalated like this.

When I read the original post I must admit I didn't expect it to cause the furore that i appears to have.

I don't know what events stimulated the original HNW post.

In respect of Elgee's analogy, I think that a one of the key relevant factors is that there are an array of policies, checks and balances to ensure that oversee the conduct of the BBC whereas in the case of the DAG there is, quite understandably, less formality and rigor over such matters.

Posted by manx-person on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 07:17
This is a website forum, not

This is a website forum, not the BBC.

The idea DST can could control what is written on here, when we don't even know who you are as individuals, is completely and utterly ridiculous.

Posted by chris watson on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 06:29
Just a thought Flight DAG2009

Just a thought
Flight DAG2009 was midway on its flightpath when it ran into a a violent storm. The plane was taking a severe battering, & the passengers started to get jittery.

Then there came an announcement from the cockpit: "ladies & gentlemen, Captain Dee Estee speaking -- sorry for the rough ride but you may rest assured that we have been trained to weather a storm like this. There is no need to panic. We do have a spot of trouble with one of our 2 engines & I am going to have to shut it down. This will make the flight most disagreeable for a while but everything is under control. Please remain calm & stay in your seat -- we will take good care of ALL of you"

Suddenly a very wealthy passenger in first class panicked & came running through the plane. Putting his mouth where his money was he yelled: "don’t listen to the captain; she’s not really in control at all ! Listen to me! After that French plane went down I feared something like this might happen so I bought a load of parachutes with me, enough for everyone. Ignore the captain... grab a chute & follow me through the emergency exit"

Posted by Lucky Jim on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 06:22
The idea that posts should be

The idea that posts should be censored by the DAG is quite frankly worrying and the suggestion that they are only looking after our best interests is condescending. We are all adults and do not need to be 'protected' from the opinions of others, history shows that this sort of action is just the beginning of the long downward slope.

Posted by expatfrance1 on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 06:20
Do you think the BBC should

Do you think the BBC should be required to broadcast announcements by the independent TV stations stating that the BBC is rubbish and its programme ideas are mostly stolen from independent TV and inviting BBC viewers to switch channels? If not, why?

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 03:25
The idea of censorship unless

The idea of censorship unless a post is abusive is outrageous we are not children but thinking adults and dont

need to be told what we can read.

Posted by bellyup on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 02:29
I regret that this posting

I regret that this posting from Adrienne undermines the past efforts of the DST on behalf of DAG and is in danger of sabotaging some of our present efforts. It seems to be directed at ensuring HNW gains up to 3 seats on the creditors' committee, which appears to me to be out of all proportion to their representation, and excusing this group's refusal to ask its members for funding for DAG's legal costs and seeking to take credit for much of DST's own work, which is offensive but not especially damaging. However, by seeking to talk up what should be a relatively insignificant division within DAG, it is potentially highly damaging to the interests of depositors as a whole and entirely unnecessary. IT appears that HNW group feels the need to carve out for itself a separate role in the liquidation process, but it seems to me wrong to do this at the expense of the majority of depositors.

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 00:47
No censorship at all, unless

No censorship at all, unless posts fall foul of the defamatory rules as described by ng.

It might be people don't want to read contrary opinions but I don't want these people to force me to live like an ostrich.

Posted by chris watson on Fri, 26/06/2009 - 00:13
In my opinion, one should be

In my opinion, one should be able to voice their opinion even if it may prove to be contrary to that of DAG so long as it is on topic and is not considered abusive. Only through the open discussion can one assess the better path to follow.

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 25/06/2009 - 21:59