Ah c'mon Dave!

[the_maoster]

“Offensive content removed” Really? I made a comment that probably 70% of the readers wouldn’t understand anyway, a comment that for the life of me I can’t see any offence in and it gets removed.

Now I imagine that it was removed as a result of a complaint being made which forced you to act, but here’s the thing; offence is subjective really, what someone finds funny someone else will find offensive. Where do you draw the line? IMO there was nothing offensive in what I wrote in either language or meaning but what you’ve done is set a precedent wherein a complainant gets to dictate freedom of speech, the same complainant who undoubtedly has seen and shared offensive (to some) videos amongst friends in the past.

I find it offensive that someone bereft of humour can influence my posts. Can I complain to you Dave or do I simply shrug and carry on with my life safe in the knowledge that a collection of pixels on a screen really doesn’t affect my life one way or another?

[robroy]

I saw it, and was one of your 30% that got it…
Was I offended?
Don’t be ■■■■ daft

I think it was the (very subtle ) ■■■■ connotations that did it, (that’s assuming I actually DID get the joke that is ) I seem to remember somebody on here being offended by a picture of Hitler a couple of years ago.

By shear coincidence me and Maoster were just talking about this subject earlier today (nothing to do with Trucknet posts) about these easily offended at the drop of a hat types, and those who are not really offended, but feel the need to express that they are for some reason best known to themselves.
It’s the present snowflake society we live in.

I sometimes watch old comedy shows on Sky from the 70s, nobody gave a ■■■■ in those days, I ain’t talking about out and out racism either, just some comedy material, like Freddie Starr taking the ■■■■ out of Hitler for instance…,…today? No chance.

Even the old Top of the Pops shows on BBC4, there was a band called The Motors singing a track called ‘Airport’.the lead guitarist was dressed in a ■■■■ Luftwaffe uniform…could you imagine that today?

Not having a go at Dave nor Trucknet here btw, but today we have to accept that the minority’s opinion prevails and they are catered for in all walks of society.

Or am I reading too much into this?

[andiehyde]

I posted a picture of Hitler surrounded by brownshirts back in December and it’s still up.
Drew a few comments as it was relevant to thread but no one lost their mind over it.

I did make a comment about the showers in Germany recently and that was deleted which seems to be a growing trend at the moment. Locking a thread because it is getting out of hand is one thing but to actually remove it from existing, quite another.

[dieseldog999]

robroy:
I saw it, and was one of your 30% that got it…
Was I offended?
Don’t be [zb] daft

I think it was the (very subtle ) ■■■■ connotations that did it, (that’s assuming I actually DID get the joke that is ) I seem to remember somebody on here being offended by a picture of Hitler a couple of years ago.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
i also read it and thought nothing of it as it wasnt commenting on liking or favouring nazis,anti black,or anti jew,it was only referring to the idea of a facist/skynet state .
if the snowflakes dont like it then they also could also choose to go back to mumsnet.
i defy anyone not to look on youtube for…
spike milligan-= hitler sings and not crack a smile.
obviously im a tad biased being old school racist and make no secret of it to anyone that knows me,but even at that,it was taking it a bit ott for a remark that would be glossed over and not taken out of context by 99% of those that read it??

[dieseldave]

the maoster:
“Offensive content removed” Really? I made a comment that probably 70% of the readers wouldn’t understand anyway, a comment that for the life of me I can’t see any offence in and it gets removed.

Hi maoster,

A very fair question.

When I first saw it, I thought it was 50/50 at best.

the maoster:
Now I imagine that it was removed as a result of a complaint being made which forced you to act, but here’s the thing; offence is subjective really, what someone finds funny someone else will find offensive.

You imagine correctly, the post was indeed reported.
I agree that offence and humour are subjective, so I’d have left it, but for the report.

the maoster:
Where do you draw the line?

I’d have left it, but for the report.

the maoster:
IMO there was nothing offensive in what I wrote in either language or meaning but what you’ve done is set a precedent wherein a complainant gets to dictate freedom of speech, the same complainant who undoubtedly has seen and shared offensive (to some) videos amongst friends in the past.

Of course, you’re entitled to your opinion whilst we remember that ‘offensive’ is subjective. There is no precedent because it’s done case-by-case… so sometimes the Mod/Amin Team receive reports upon which no action is taken. So sometimes the reporter gets disappointed in that they can’t (and never will) get to influence us to any agenda that they may have.
I guess I’m saying that it’s a two-way street.

Whether (or not) the reporter has shared videos has no bearing on your question.

the maoster:
I find it offensive that someone bereft of humour can influence my posts.

Already covered because both ‘offence’ and ‘humour’ are subjective. I’ll just add that it was the report that made the difference.

the maoster:
Can I complain to you Dave or do I simply shrug and carry on with my life safe in the knowledge that a collection of pixels on a screen really doesn’t affect my life one way or another?

Of course you can complain, you did so and I hope I’ve answered your question.

[dieseldave]

dieseldog999:
… if the snowflakes dont like it then they also could also choose to go back to mumsnet.

IMHO this is also subjective depending on a person’s initial standpoint and whether the person realises that this fits on a wider scale than simply a set of standards that they have for themselves.

To take an extreme example… a terrorist or a murderer might not understand why the rest of mankind (they’re snowflakes in his opinion) don’t support his cause.

A person who posts (what some see as) crass or offensive comments might wonder why they get removed, because (by his own standards) he can’t or won’t see anything wrong with them.

There’s a bit of live and let live needed by all.

[uktramp]

dieseldave:
There’s a bit of live and let live needed by all.

How very true that statement is. I find it incredible at just how many truck drivers are so sensitive and so easily offended. You wouldn’t find this kind of sensitivity amongst many different robust groups of people, types such as miners, dock workers, engineers etc. It is to the point where you can only imagine that they have been wrapped up in cotton wool all of their lives. I am pretty much a mans man where I have a good laugh with all of my mates, I ride a motorbike and attend rally’s with different groups of bikers from around the country and have never seen such easily offended people in my life. Maybe I am just made of sterner stuff than most but I do suspect that most on here are not as sensitive as they make out, it is more of cry to the mods and see if I can get them into bother that they cannot do themselves. Is it the mods job to shield these sensitive types and penalise the accused in favor of the accuser each and every time. You could argue that the mods have actually created this community themselves and made a rod for their own backs.

[andiehyde]

dieseldave:

the maoster:
“Offensive content removed” Really? I made a comment that probably 70% of the readers wouldn’t understand anyway, a comment that for the life of me I can’t see any offence in and it gets removed.

Hi maoster,

A very fair question.

When I first saw it, I thought it was 50/50 at best.

the maoster:
Now I imagine that it was removed as a result of a complaint being made which forced you to act, but here’s the thing; offence is subjective really, what someone finds funny someone else will find offensive.

You imagine correctly, the post was indeed reported.
I agree that offence and humour are subjective, so I’d have left it, but for the report.

the maoster:
Where do you draw the line?

I’d have left it, but for the report.

the maoster:
IMO there was nothing offensive in what I wrote in either language or meaning but what you’ve done is set a precedent wherein a complainant gets to dictate freedom of speech, the same complainant who undoubtedly has seen and shared offensive (to some) videos amongst friends in the past.

Of course, you’re entitled to your opinion whilst we remember that ‘offensive’ is subjective. There is no precedent because it’s done case-by-case… so sometimes the Mod/Amin Team receive reports upon which no action is taken. So sometimes the reporter gets disappointed in that they can’t (and never will) get to influence us to any agenda that they may have.
I guess I’m saying that it’s a two-way street.

Whether (or not) the reporter has shared videos has no bearing on your question.

the maoster:
I find it offensive that someone bereft of humour can influence my posts.

Already covered because both ‘offence’ and ‘humour’ are subjective. I’ll just add that it was the report that made the difference.

the maoster:
Can I complain to you Dave or do I simply shrug and carry on with my life safe in the knowledge that a collection of pixels on a screen really doesn’t affect my life one way or another?

Of course you can complain, you did so and I hope I’ve answered your question.

As always, with respect.
This stance, although somewhat understandable, is a very slippery slope.
We, the majority are being censored to appease a small minority of readily offended in order to keep them from creating frivolous “reports”
This is not the first time I have witnessed the “it’s our ball and if you dont like our rules, you can ■■■■ off and play somewhere else” kind of policy.

In a different thread you accused me of being cryptic so as subtle as a brick. Here goes.

The latest actor in sock puppet theater (R420) supposedly reported you as raising a thread against “carryfasf” (love him or hate him) for infringement of the forum rules.
Only to then participate in berating the fella in another thread.

So I share others frustration in where clicks seem to trump integrity.

[the_maoster]

Thank you for taking the time to respond Dave, and thank you for the measured and well presented response when you could have easily written along the lines of “if you don’t like it…”, so for that you have my gratitude.

Despite your argument I still disagree with the action taken. I felt that it was overzealous and made just to appease a respected poster who probably was not offended in the least but rather had deliberately set out to find offence as he probably suspected that my comment was aimed in his direction.

I think that we are in some way losing sight of our target audience here; rough, tough hairy arsed lorry drivers. UKT sums it up perfectly above tbh. Do I want TN to go in the direction of some kind of Facebookesque free for all? Not in the slightest, but I fear that the delicate balance has tipped too far in pandering to certain sections.

To sum up; I’m not going to have some kind of TN flounce where I’ll sneak back on in a few days as I very much enjoy the forum (as is obvious by the amount of time I spend here) I also feel that generally the Mods do an exceptional and thankless job but I am saddened that in a forum that should be a bastion of hard working men and women and should reflect their ribald humour, ■■■■■■■■■■ etc that I feel too much credence is been given to those seeking offence.

[eagerbeaver]

Some good words in that last post Maost.

I’ve checked them on my portable scrabble (Convoy rubber duck Ltd edition) and you scored well mate.

As regards the mod’s, I think they are all utterly fantastic. I like Rikki the most, I have read a couple of his articles in truck mags, they are a riveting read.

[dieseldave]

AndieHyde:
I posted a picture of Hitler surrounded by brownshirts back in December and it’s still up.
Drew a few comments as it was relevant to thread but no one lost their mind over it.

Hi Andie,
There are some variables at work here, so TBH I wouldn’t know an exact answer to this point.

For instance:
It’s possible that it didn’t get reported.
It’s possible that it got reported, but a Mod decided that it was OK and so left it.
It’s possible that (without any report) a Mod saw it and decided that it was OK and so left it.

AndieHyde:
I did make a comment about the showers in Germany recently and that was deleted which seems to be a growing trend at the moment.

There are also some variables to this one, similar to those I mentioned above, so I’m afraid that I can’t give an exact answer to this point either.

For instance:
It’s possible that it got reported.
It’s possible that it got reported, then a Mod decided to remove it.
It’s possible that (without any report) a Mod saw it and decided to remove it.

AndieHyde:
Locking a thread because it is getting out of hand is one thing but to actually remove it from existing, quite another.

Sometimes (with or without a report) a Mod simply locks a topic for one of several reasons.

It’s up to the particular Mod concerned as to whether they feel it necessary (for any reason) to remove it from public view.

Sometimes, people think (and I make no assumption about you here) that ‘removed’ means the same as ‘deleted,’ which is NOT true. Removed posts are securely stored away from public view for us to refer to in case of dispute at a later date.

[robroy]

the maoster:
Thank you for taking the time to respond Dave, and thank you for the measured and well presented response when you could have easily written along the lines of “if you don’t like it…”, so for that you have my gratitude.

Despite your argument I still disagree with the action taken. I felt that it was overzealous and made just to appease a respected poster who probably was not offended in the least but rather had deliberately set out to find offence as he probably suspected that my comment was aimed in his direction.

I think that we are in some way losing sight of our target audience here; rough, tough hairy arsed lorry drivers. UKT sums it up perfectly above tbh. Do I want TN to go in the direction of some kind of Facebookesque free for all? Not in the slightest, but I fear that the delicate balance has tipped too far in pandering to certain sections.

To sum up; I’m not going to have some kind of TN flounce where I’ll sneak back on in a few days as I very much enjoy the forum (as is obvious by the amount of time I spend here) I also feel that generally the Mods do an exceptional and thankless job but I am saddened that in a forum that should be a bastion of hard working men and women and should reflect their ribald humour, ■■■■■■■■■■ etc that I feel too much credence is been given to those seeking offence.

I totally agree.
Dave has replied and explained things in his usual polite manner, rather than in a …If you don’t like it #### off manner, but I think it’s a bit of a mistake tbh to pander to these types who actually take the time to report threads that have no bearing on themselves personally.
Why would anybody feel the need to report somebody, other than if they were being attacked in a private life personal type way, family or personal aspects, or disproportionately to anything that has been said to them in the first place…I just don’t get it.
Too much time on their hands? /Taking things far too seriously? …or both.
The types of people that you work with who would ‘grass you up’ ay the drop of a hat in real life scenarios I do not doubt.

So if one person is (so called) offended, you can only assume that the remainder of the other members of the forum 99.9999% were not, but the member who reports this sort of stuff is allowed to have a post deleted or even a thread banned?
Surely a footnote saying ‘x no of members were offended by this’ would be at least an ackknowledgement towards the ‘offendee’ …(.is that a word?.)
As Maoster says, I also enjoy this forum, but this sort of stuff slightly spoils it I reckon.

[dieseldave]

the maoster:
Thank you for taking the time to respond Dave, and thank you for the measured and well presented response when you could have easily written along the lines of “if you don’t like it…”, so for that you have my gratitude.

Hi maoster,

In my turn, I thank you (very much) for your understanding.

the maoster:
Despite your argument I still disagree with the action taken. I felt that it was overzealous and made just to appease a respected poster who probably was not offended in the least but rather had deliberately set out to find offence as he probably suspected that my comment was aimed in his direction.

I’d understand your comment about “overzealous” and I’d agree completely if I’d looked back having taken the action without the report. TBH, I thought it was 50/50 when I first saw it. However, it did get reported.
I think we may agree to differ (slightly) at this point, but please see my next answer…

I have to be very careful about the confidentiality surrounding reports so as to maintain the confidence that a person making a report places in us, so my hands are tied about who reported it, and the content of the report.

However, all I can say is that the report was credible, so it tipped the balance (just) over 50/50 in this case.
The balance is sometimes very “delicate” so sometimes a report gets no action taken, which takes care of those who have a killjoy type agenda.

the maoster:
I think that we are in some way losing sight of our target audience here; rough, tough hairy arsed lorry drivers. UKT sums it up perfectly above tbh. Do I want TN to go in the direction of some kind of Facebookesque free for all? Not in the slightest, but I fear that the delicate balance has tipped too far in pandering to certain sections.

Still with tied hands…
I absolutely agree that the balance is “delicate,” you’re not kidding!!

The owners of TruckNet UK (DVV Media International) agree about the perils of a “Facebookesque” situation and will not allow that to happen, so that’s why a lot of the petty name-calling school playground personal attack type stuff gets completely removed.

We are also agreed on the target audience, but… the target audience should realise that some of the old lines are being re-drawn by society in the name of progress. Some of us ‘old schoolers’ (I’m old school BTW) have a perfectly valid view on that when measured against ‘old school’ standards. TV programmes are a good example of this because some of what was acceptable in the 70s and 80s is absolutely a no-no today. That’s whether we like it or not!!

Another point is that the ‘reporter’ might be what I’ll call ‘new school’ and possibly what ‘old schoolers’ would call offended snowflakes.

the maoster:
To sum up; I’m not going to have some kind of TN flounce where I’ll sneak back on in a few days as I very much enjoy the forum (as is obvious by the amount of time I spend here) I also feel that generally the Mods do an exceptional and thankless job but I am saddened that in a forum that should be a bastion of hard working men and women and should reflect their ribald humour, ■■■■■■■■■■ etc that I feel too much credence is been given to those seeking offence.

If you take my comment about society and progress, we do have to take some things a little more seriously than was once the case, but (back to “delicate” balance) ‘reports’ don’t always get the outcome that the reporter intends.

To sum up; (with NO particular people in mind) there are those in both camps (posters and reporters) who will push the boundaries of acceptability simply because it may amuse them. That’s exactly where our agreed “delicate” balance comes in, but when we consider that the volunteer Mod/Admin Team are all different individual humans (with all that’s entailed in that) so getting a completely uniform approach is nigh on impossible. We do our best though.

[r420]

Being a Chinese citizen as I am, I resent having to read all the false anti-CCP propaganda put out by Carryfast. I find it highly offensive, so Dave would I be correct in thinking if I report all his highly offensive posts about the “CCP” you will take the necessary action and remove them?

[dieseldave]

AndieHyde:
As always, with respect.

Hi Andie,

That respect is reciprocated.

AndieHyde:
This stance, although somewhat understandable, is a very slippery slope.
We, the majority are being censored to appease a small minority of readily offended in order to keep them from creating frivolous “reports”

It’s just the order in which I’ve seen/answered posts, but most of your points are covered my last answer to maoster.

I’ll happily discuss: “We, the majority are being censored” etc though.
It doesn’t matter who “the majority” are because TruckNet UK isn’t run in a manner “where clicks seem to trump integrity,” or on behalf of who has the biggest gang regardless of the minority, so it’s not binary.

TruckNet UK does not “censor” anything, we aim (as far as humanly possible) to keep to the ethos and the forum rules, which a number posters simply fail to read and/or understand.

The arguments of censorship/free speech, are usually used by those with an agenda not in keeping with the wishes of the owners of the forum (DVV Media International,) and if allowed to, would probably hijack the forum to use to preach whatever downright 'orrible stuff floats their boat. The ethos and rules have served us well in the past, so I can’t see any need for the owners to change anything much any time soon.

AndieHyde:
This is not the first time I have witnessed the “it’s our ball and if you dont like our rules, you can [zb] off and play somewhere else” kind of policy.

I’ll admit that sometimes when people don’t seem to take a courteous and respectful point made to them, then as a last resort… it’s the only answer left to give!

AndieHyde:
In a different thread you accused me of being cryptic so as subtle as a brick. Here goes.

Sorry Andie, but if you think that my answer of “your reply is a bit too cryptic for me” means some kind of accusation, then you might not have noticed the “for me” right at the end. I just meant to say that I didn’t get it.

AndieHyde:
The latest actor in sock puppet theater (R420) supposedly reported you as raising a thread against “carryfasf” (love him or hate him) for infringement of the forum rules.
Only to then participate in berating the fella in another thread.

I noticed that too Andie, but sockpuppet or not, I didn’t answer that post because I took my own advice, scrolled past it and didn’t bite. R420 didn’t raise the issue, so that was his/her choice and I’ve got no problem with it either way.

Let’s be fair, very few of us have met each other in real life so I don’t know R420 or you for that matter, but UKT made a very good point (quite a while ago and paraphrased now by me) that it’s very easy to dodge around on the internet as multiple personas if a person is so inclined. Many of us don’t quite know who we’re dealing with.

TruckNet UK has no rule about multiple IDs, so any hue and cry about it is people making a rule and then acting as judge and jury to enforce something that doesn’t exist, which IMHO is either irritating or amusing depending on the reader’s mood or point of view.

[the_maoster]

Once again Dave, thank you for taking the time to respond. If I may say your talents are wasted teaching ADR stuff, the diplomat corps beckons surely? (that remark was intended fondly btw)

We will as you say have to agree to disagree on this matter, but that’s ok because I’ve said many times that if we all agreed all of the time then life would be pretty boring.

Have a good evening Dave, I still love you hunnybuns and I’ll buy the pies next time!

[r420]

dieseldave:
I noticed that too Andie, but sockpuppet or not, I didn’t answer that post because I took my own advice, scrolled past it and didn’t bite. R420 didn’t raise the issue, so that was his/her choice and I’ve got no problem with it either way.

I didn’t feel it needed spelling out, but apparently it did . The reply to Dave in the thread in question was entirely tongue in cheek. I had completely forgotten about that post actually.