Genuine Question

[Airey Belvoir]

The SWO Stories thread has been closed and I just wondered what, in the PPRuNe rules, lead to such a closing?

To the non moderator/owner eye there didn't appear to be anything insulting, personally targetted, racist or any of the usual culprits. Admittedly the last allowed post had a vague reference to Christianity - perhaps that's the reason the thread was canned - to avoid upsetting another religious group?

In short, it was a good thread for pulling up the sandbag and swinging the lamp. An explanation would be nice.

[Pontius Navigator]

Could itbe because it was from Hmmmm 'personna non grata'?

PP seems to be targetted at the moment by one-post-wizards. Someone gets a handle, logs in, creates a new thread? Almost a DOS attack but targetted at us.

[The Old Fat One]

To the non moderator/owner eye there didn't appear to be anything insulting, personally targetted, racist or any of the usual culprits.


Wrong

An individual - not a celeb, or someone otherwise in the public eye - was named on the thread. A practice that is/was becoming all too common on Pprune and one that is wholly unacceptable on most internet forums.

Hopefully this is evidence that the mods are going to clamp down on this behaviour.

[Airey Belvoir]

From my reading of the thread 2 WOs were actually named, both from a long time ago and may well be time-expired by now, but, importantly, both were referred to in fond terms.

A practice that is/was becoming all too common on Pprune

So where do we stand when colleagues pass away or their names are common knowledge like the CDS or CAS??

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I too found the SWO Thread being chopped rather strange. Overworked RAF faces manpower 'crisis' was culled around the same time. If I were a Booky, I might be tempted to run odds on how long the The "real" Air Force one lasts for.

Pontius N; I cannot believe you used "targetted" twice in the sense that a journalist or politician would. It was early this morning, though. :}

[The Old Fat One]

Where we stand will always be a subjective decsion for the individual poster and the moderators who apply the rules.

Most of the people who read the threads and contribute here can tell the difference between the well-intentioned, well-meaning posts and those that are abusive, vitriolic and insulting.

I read the SWO posts (I have no personal knowledge of those mentioned whatsoever) and one of them at least did not strike me as a "fond" comment. Anyway, that is unimportant. What counts is how the individuals concerned (and their families etc) would feel about the posts. They didn't ask to have their names revealed for all who pass by here to see.

Anecdotes can easily be posted without specifically identifying people, without losing their meaning, context or humour.

The Mods also have to consider the law. Internet forums have been legally held to account for allowing abusive comments about indentifiable people to feature on Forums.

Even if the SWO thread was failry trivial, any consistent follower of Pprune will have witnessed two recent threads where naming and shaming was utterly out of order - and rightly led to a warning from the Mods. As has been said by both moderators and several contributors, Pprune will be a better place, if the norms of internet forums are voluntarily observed.

QED

[Al R]

The RAF Regiment threads too, why? They were turning into a good piece of banter. If people don't like reading threads like that, then er - don't read 'em. Any message board which might be specialist in nature always needs a little light relief, so if there is an issue with trolls then pre mod their first 5 posts or so - or be referred by a sponsor. Its not too hard to do and allows the board staff the chance to gauge someone.

What is wrong in being named on the internet? If I was named in my parish magazine would there be similar issues? The default setting that says there must be no names is daft. Where is the security issue with regards to that SWO thread? Did anyone ask the SWOs or are we going to chew our cous cous and be offended on their behalf because we can? They were SWOs for gods sake - it doesn't say where they are now and anyway, I'm sure they were made of sterner stuff than this.

ETA: Of course, operational and personal/ family safety issues arise in some instances.

[kluge]

TOFO - quite right.

Sh!t - quick BEagle edit the "My Beautiful Weber" thread.

Way too much non PC banter on that one :eek:

[Pontius Navigator]

Pontius N; I cannot believe you used "targetted" twice in the sense that a journalist or politician would. It was early this morning, though. :}

:(

Yes it was early but several ppruners have already commented on the number of first time ppruners starting a thread.

I lurked for quite some time before I posted and even now rarely start a thread. Brave New World? Brash yoof?

[Double Zero]

I happen to agree with Pontious !

We can all keep a sense of humour without naming names, and the guilty personell - if still with us - and chums / colleauges will know who they are anyway.

[sumps]

Overworked RAF faces manpower 'crisis' was culled around the same time. If I were a Booky, I might be tempted to run odds on how long the The "real" Air Force one lasts for.


Not only locked but cut out too - I still wonder if there is some kind of conspiracy going on (i.e. “bad “comments about the RAF wont be seen!!!) – I wonder how long before this thread is locked or chopped? :eek:

[spanners123]

Try thinking about it from a different angle, most of the posts that have been locked/deleted are a direct cut and paste from other forums, one of which is E-Goat, often using a user name of someone from there. Seems to me they have an alternative motive, or maybe old fashioned trolling, either way, surely most people can smell a rat.

[NutLoose]

I was the first to Mention JH and if it was because of that I am extremely saddened to have been the cause of this posters thread getting closed.

Actually I looked back on those times like most as a distant and heart warming moment, even though at the time I thought otherwise.

I worked on the assumption that he was now possibly standing besides St Peter at the pearly gates and keeping St Peter in check polishing his brasswork and manning the barrier, whilst keeping the less deserving off his immaculate clouds.
If that is not the case and he has not moved on to make St Peters life more interesting for eternity, then I apologise unreservedly to any disrespect and offence I may have caused to both JH, the thread intitiator and indeed any other member of this forum for mentioning his name, it was not my intention at all. :(

Right Lads........... NOW GET YER 'AIRCUT :ok:

[Two's in]

What is wrong in being named on the internet? If I was named in my parish magazine would there be similar issues? The default setting that says there must be no names is daft.

Don't assume it's always security, just naming individuals as a "publisher" takes you a lot closer to a lawsuit.

...Defamation legislation gives a defence where the 'publisher' (the blogging host) has no knowledge of the defamatory remarks or no reason to suspect the remarks have been made. This gives some protection to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) but very little comfort where the blogger has read and accepted comments on his/her blogging pages. A prudent blogger must exercise editorial control over comments to avoid this liability as a publisher of libel...

[Al R]

It does?

I don't think that legislation consequences formed no part of the decision process. What was bad about what was said? That was the point I was making - the names were mildly mentioned in passing and clearly, the personal and subjective view of the poster anyway.

And what about all those Glenn Torpy name checks then? Is he not allowed the protection of the law? I ask that because if the 'publisher' is to rely on the law, then at least lets have it exercised as a constant. Or if not, lets not have threads removed for silly reasons. The best way to deal with childish trolls is to annoy them with casual and scathing indifference and let them slowly fade away.

[PPRuNe Pop]

There is going to be more of the same if the miscreants from another site try to use PPRuNe, as they have, to post puerile threads. Including some cut and pasted to here.

We are not going to tolerate the latest intrusion of a few (so far) who are bent on making a nuisance of themselves. They are, it appears, intent on lowering the standards and quality of PPRuNe and it is not going to happen.

We know of a large list of people who have suddenly appeared, many have already been banned - more are sure to follow.

The rules of PPRuNe are clear and can be read on page one.

most of the posts that have been locked/deleted are a direct cut and paste from other forums, one of which is E-Goat, often using a user name of someone from there. Seems to me they have an alternative motive, or maybe old fashioned trolling.

There have been many complaints about these trolls, or whatever you wish to call them, but I can assure you that if rules are broken, or the standards fall, moderating will be swift and purposeful.

We like Mil the way it is and will see to it that it stays that way.

[sumps]

Try thinking about it from a different angle, most of the posts that have been locked/deleted are a direct cut and paste from other forums, one of which is E-Goat, often using a user name of someone from there. Seems to me they have an alternative motive, or maybe old fashioned trolling, either way, surely most people can smell a rat.
Today 00:04


There is also an issue with people messing around with (hacking) the posts on the E-goat and assuming names of people from pp – speak to the Mods for more details. But it does look to me as if someone is trying to set both sites against each other.

[tutgby]

Well OK sure, but more to the point, where has the SWO thread disappeared to...?!:E