Moderation and deleting posts

For goodness sake! (please appreciate the polite version) This is a forum. On the internet. It really isn't that important.

Now please excuse this next contribution. Or don't.......

So, gien the fact that it is the poster that could be prosecuted should they not have the right to remove their post themselves?

Cari

Reporting posts is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

However, posts are deleted as a precautionary measure in the first instance and may later be proven to NOT have any libellous wording and/or the words posted are clearly in the public domain! GNHQ should verify that to be the case , after all the post was deleted by GNHQ as a protection for us but it stigmatises the poster , unfairly.

When a post is deleted by GNHQ this does show a possible lack of integrity by the poster to those who have not had the opportunity to see the content of the deleted post. Unlike the person who who reported the post they may well take a different view or have a little more knowledge of the content posted. A deleted post can be for the safequard of the poster, I fully understand that and it is to be appreciated but to other GN's they will see only a deleted post and automatically wonder was it abuse of a personal nature, libellous content etc. This has a horrible impact on the poster when his/her post has been challenged by another who has made a false accusation, made it a personal issue or is simply being true about his/her thought on the matter.

When however GNHQ does establish that, for arguments sake, NO LIBELLOUS content was posted it would be only fair and proper to inform other posters of your findings, especially as leaving other posts that state this has happened continue to, or even become more inflated. It gives rise to further humiliation of the poster whose post has been deleted and they have done nothing wrong.

It takes due care and process between the deleted poster and GNHQ to establish whether or not a post is tantamount to libellous. Your contribution on this thread is welcomed but it does not satisfy the need to hold the poster who reported a post to account or at least give an explanation of how they have no cause to continue making their allegations , that is just not playing fair.

When posts are reported why should there be anonymity? Posters could be quite genuine, posters could have a dislike of a poster and want to cause trouble, a poster may hold a firm, correct assumption of the post they reported. They have the right to post in return to any post they disagree with but why they do have the right to have their posts still on the site if and when it is proven to be incorrect in it's allegations by GNHQ?

Deleted posts should expand to state why it has been deleted e.g personal abuse, against forum guidelines, requires further clarification by GNHQ etc, but in return if found none of the mentioned are considered to be true GNHQ should make that equally clear to stop any continued misjudgements of character that arises.

This is serious point I am making and forgive me for asking but is this the right thread for grinning emoticons?

Oh do come back Cari. GT wants to discuss it some more.

I don't think I've given it any thought soon.

#smallbrain

Not true soon - there would be a court order about the children's anonymity and the fact that inevitably some prople in the area knew who they were would not make it ok for it to be put on the Internet or even the local paper. The issue is wider than libel isn't it HQ?

GT is not overreacting at all.

The internet is very public. Open to anyone across the world who has a computer.

Didnt you know that jingl?

Anyone know what counts as the public arena. How many people have to know, for it to be public knowledge. Maybe 5? Or does it mean a town?

Either way, I wouldnt like to have to prove something through a solicitor.

Going by the above gransnet post, phoenix could, if she chose, keep the post up by the sounds of it?

Oh shite! (about dobbing us in handing us over! )

(It was a tiinsy bit gossipy (IMHO) So what?

On the thread. Not on the head

Sometimes Grannytwice, it's only worth knee jerk.

Over reaction, or what?

We moderated the thread on the head. And someone reported the post (quite rightly imo, though it wasn't me) and it was deleted. Job finished.

I still think we should be able to delete our own posts as sometimes it's easy to write something and regret it almost straight away and it takes ages for HQ to act. As for the thread itself it wasn't gossipy in any way just showed the concern that we all have for these poor children .

No offence phoenix by the way. You wanted to post it, and that was up to you.

Oh ok. I would definitely have said something last night.

Soon - yes sometimes saying something can help - others might support you and the 'offending' poster might rein back or ask themselves for a deletion. That's a better way than reporting but not always the appropriate way- it depends.

But I get it wrong sometimes GT. So now I hold back.
Does just saying something on a thread help though? Gransnet dont read everything.

I understand the view that it is reasonable to ask GNHQ to explain the reasons for deleting a post, where those reasons might be ones that other posters need to take on board for the future.

No soon it isn't just up to them - it's also up to us as posters and human beings - to report when it's serious ( and we may need help in defining that eg libel, breaching court orders for anononymity ) and if not sure to perhaps say something on the thread - with the MM I made my views known on the thread itself but eventually felt I had to report as it was a) legally dubious and b) how would someone connected to the parents feel if they read it? HQ might consider the reputation of GN as well apart from its legal obligations

Gransnet are not going to read everything though. It doesnt on mumsnet.
I have been hesitating for days about telling them about another post elsewhere. But as you say, they have light moderation, so I have not.
Also, I am a newbie, and assumed, with the post last night, that others would report it.
Not all pas are reported either, by a long way, so I assume that that is how gransnet likes the site. It is up to them <shrugs>

Essentially there is no difference, on the news and politics threads at least, between posting on Gransnet and writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper.
Not even the editor of the sleaziest red top would have dared to publish a letter that could identify the children in this case, so I agree with you Grannytwice that in those two forums at least, GN should be much more robustly and actively moderated if only to to protect itself legally.
Posters slagging each other off on the other threads is perhaps rather different!

So come on HQ - but I suppose we've done your job for you now haven't we?