Gransnet or Nannynet?

Well I'm all for transparency and openness-so here's my e-mail

We're just getting in touch as you mentioned you didn't receive an email to let you know one of your posts had been deleted. So sorry about this, we always email a poster if we are having to delete something of theirs, but it looks as though something untoward happened on this occasion.

As you may know, there are a few of us who moderate the site and it's our job to make a judgement call when posts are reported to us. Though we don't usually delete satirical posts or ones that some members may feel are in bad taste, we do act when we feel the post goes a little beyond that, which we felt this one did.

Obviously not everyone will agree on what goes too far but, as moderators, it is our duty to make that call - not always an easy task, but we do our best. Again, apologies that you weren't informed of the deletion straight away.

All best,

So no question of libel, purely a question of taste. So please please Gransnet let's have a rating system why should those of us with broad minds who appreciate jokes (even ones in bad taste) be restricted to the mundane and sometimes tame posts some find acceptable? It would cut down on notifications and make everyone much happier.

Oh and Swift would presumably be deleted as well!

Topics I personally find beyond the bounds of acceptable would include paedophiles, learning disabilities, physical handicap, bereavement, terminal illness, and physical cruelty or abuse ( of people or indeed animals) .
Does that make me narrow minded?

So be it.

I think it depends on what is actually said about those topics.

I personally don't find it particularly funny to suggest a well-known dead paedophile, or a locked up one, as Children's minister, but only because it's a bit "done before". Just a bit lame really. But not in bad taste. That's just silly and small minded.

I do like jokes to make me laugh. Probably because it's something I hadn't thought of before. The joke in the OP, from the Huff Post, made me laugh out loud.

trisher That's the second time you have mentioned Swift. Are you suggesting that your post is comparable to A Modest Proposal. If so, I really wish I had seen that masterpiece of satire.

absent I never have and never would compare my small joke to Swift's masterpiece except to make the point that censorship on the grounds of taste can have far reaching effects, and that causing offence has a long and notable history, but , apparently, is considered unsuitable for grans.

Is causing gratuitous offence suitable for anybody?

What a strange question Soutra

No Soutra, it's not

No. I don't think it would be right to cause gratuitous offence.

But I don't see the connection here.

HQ said your post went "a bit beyond" mere bad taste, trisher. Mildly put but very clear that bad taste was not the problem.

Eh?!

(searches for a point where bad taste is so bad it can no longer be described as bad taste but has to have another term applied to it. And what the other term would be)

It was a bad taste joke but it had more to it, I hoped to make people think:1 about people with inappropriate views being given public appointments: 2. that the 2 people concerned had close connections with the establishment and would once have been seen as ideal for the job: 3. that this government and the establishment still have a poor record on investigating and prosecuting child abuse at high levels.
Maybe it wouldn't have made everybody think all of these things but it would have kept the subject in the area of public debate. Gransnet have censored it and stopped any real discussion.

I'm surprised the post was deleted - it had a satirical wit and I can't imagine who would be shocked or offended. It was along the lines of something that would be on HIGNFY.

A 'nanny' site indeed - we're not children and didn't need protecting from the post.

Trisher, if you really want to have the debate start another thread in a different way! gnhq haven't stifled debate, just your way of starting it.

In support of GNHQ, I think they have got the moderation of this site spot on. You can't please all the people all of the time.

pompa I don't object to people who want an anodyne unconfrontational forum and I respect other people's boundaries, which is why I think we need a rating system. I have my own likes and dislikes as far as posts go and there are times when I prefer not to read something. But I am old enough and wise enough to know that these are my personal preferences and I have no wish to inflict them on others. I do think there are some people with very narrow views who would restrict what others say and I don't see why they should be the ones to push GNHQ into deleting posts. If there was a rating system they would be able to avoid such posts and let the rest of us get on with it.
kittylester could do, might do. Watch this space! But busy with this just now.

I agree with your argument about people being too happy to report trisher. I wonder if it would help if we could see who started a post?

How does one know one prefers not to read something until one has read it, at least some of it?

I don't understand what you mean, kitty.

sorry thatbags should probably have said "I prefer not to read further".
A rating system would give you an idea of the sort of things that might be said. So my suggestion-
Level 1-one star-green (any method of indication you like)-chat and banter, lighthearted posts absolutely nothing controversial.
Level 2 2stars-amber- some degree of argument and discussion- no bad taste, no swearing, .
Level 3 3 stars-red- free argument and discussion with posts only deleted if the content is libellous or something which could be challenged in law.

Exactly Riverwalk.

To be fair, I think this all happened at the weekend, when one of the less experienced of the HQrs was standing in. We really should cut her some slack. If it's the one I think it might have been, she is very sweet.