Censorship

[Captain 2per]

Usually I just lurk because I don't have a whole lot to say in such lofty ccompany. Lately though I have noticed several instances of censorship by the moderators of this forum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least in the U.S. if someone publicly complains about perceived faults on the part of a manufacturer, nobody would touch him because of his Constitutional right to free speech - except in the most outrageous cases. I believe they would have to prove him wrong and I somehow suspect that might be most difficult and in the process turn over a few stones they may prefer to leave untouched.

If I were the moderator here (no thanks), I would want to rely on the fact that opinions of contributors to a public forum are not endorsed by the forum's host, as a first "defense". I don't think that a pilot's forum especially should be pro-actively protecting manufacturers from contrarian opinions. If Robinson, Bell et al haven't complained so far, I believe they never will. It would seem to me that they have to make at least one formal complaint/request that we reign an "offender" in before they have any legal case anyway. So I would leave the first move to the manufacturers. If and when they do complain, that would be the time to consider muzzling the indicated offender - until then let everybody speek freely and unfettered.

As a professional pilot, I welcome the whistle blowers of the world precisely because they ask provocative questions. Sometimes they even turn out to be oh so very right - consider ENRON. They may be eccentric, but they are not alone. For me it is literally a matter of life and death to have potential problems brought to light in this way. For this reason I would much prefer if the moderators were to refrain from any censorship until they are actually forced to it by an offendee with a legitimate complaint. In the mean time any debate can only serve the pilot community.

over to you ...

[Heliport]

"Usually I just lurk because I don't have a whole lot to say in such lofty ccompany."
There are many different ways of contributing to the success of the forum if you were inclined to make the effort.
"Lately though I have noticed several instances of censorship by the moderators of this forum."
That is simply not true. A number of posts were edited/deleted some weeks ago during the crackdown on people freeloading at PPRuNe's expense to promote their own business ventures. With only one exception, contributors to this forum accepted the decisions with good grace having had the reasons explained to them. You are the exception.
There is virtually no 'censorship' on Rotorheads because, with thankfully very few exceptions, our contributors habitually behave in a mature and sensible way. On Rotorheads, 'censorship' is necessary extremely rarely, and action is taken only after consideration of the potential legal ramifications by a lawyer.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least in the U.S. etc"
What you say may be correct under US law. It is not the position under English law. PPRuNe is based in England.
"I would want to rely on the fact that opinions of contributors to a public forum are not endorsed by the forum's host, as a first "defense".
That is not a defence in English law.
"I don't think that a pilot's forum especially should be pro-actively protecting manufacturers from contrarian opinions."
Nor do I, and we do not. (See explanation above.)
"If Robinson, Bell et al haven't complained so far, I believe they never will."
So far as I know, Robinson have never complained. On the contrary, some time ago Frank Robinson personally and patiently took a great deal of trouble to answer in detail the pet theories of our most actively anti-Robinson contributor, despite the fact that some of the accusations were against him personally. Some manufacturers have made valid and reasonable complaints in the past; I am not prepared to disclose which. What I can reveal is that all the major helicopter manufacturers now follow Rotorheads closely.
As for your belief that because something has never gone wrong so far it never will, I hope for your sake (and the sake of your passengers) that you don't adopt the same approach to your flying.
"It would seem to me .................... etc"
It may well seem that way to you, but we do not have unfettered freedom of speech in the UK. The laws of libel are but one example of the restrictions which apply.
"As a professional pilot, I welcome the whistle blowers of the world precisely because they ask provocative questions ..... etc."
So do I. But we also have a responsibility to act responsibly. That includes guarding against the forums being used (or abused) by disgruntled individuals and 'cranks' who have their own agenda, and those who inadvertently 'cross the line' in their enthusiasm.
"For me it is literally a matter of life and death to have potential problems brought to light in this way."
I agree, but it depends what you mean by "in this way. If you read the discussions more carefully, you'll see that many problems are brought to light and discussed.
"For this reason I would much prefer if the moderators were to refrain from any censorship until .......... "
Your preference has been noted. Our preference is to act upon professional legal opinion in order to protect PPRuNe's interests and ensure that it continues to provide a valuable and free service to the aviation community.


Edit
Just thought I should add that if I was wearing my 'contributor' hat, and didn't have any responsibity to protect PPRuNe's position, I too would be arguing for carte blanche unfettered freedom of speech! ;)
But, if you agree to do a job ..... etc.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Criticising people in a public forum is a sticky business. Pprune uses an anonymous approach, which means that the website management are put in a difficult position where certain sorts of criticism are aired.

I think that those who wish, say, to criticise a company should do so (a) in their own name, and (b) stating clearly their qualification and evidence for doing so.

In another forum where I am well known in my own name, I am occasionally criticised (I am fairly senior in the UK airworthiness system) by people who extend me this courtesy, and I respond in the same light. I've no problem with that, but in an anonymous forum I don't think that this is sensible - making public criticisms and hiding behind anonymity is not very ethical. English law deals with this by making the publisher liable in any libel action - and the English legal system is capable of issuing quite punitive (i.e. 7 figure and I don't mean USD) damages. This tends to concentrate the mind.

Incidentally, why in criticising the moderators of this forum, do you choose anonymity?

G


N.B. For the benefit of foreign readers, when we say "English Law", that's what we mean. Scottish law is quite distinct, as is that in some of the offshore islands such as the Isle of Mann or Jersey.

[Nick Lappos]

Speaking personally (as I always do when posting) I find the typical internet site to be a waste of time because almost every discussion quickly winds down into a bitter, ignorant name-calling exercise.

PPRUNE seems to be one place where some sense of decorum and moderation are exercised well, and the resulting exchanges are truly valuable. There is not censureship where there is descrete moderation, I believe.

Was it Holmes who said that freedom of speech does not allow one to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater? It is not censureship when pprune does not allow undocumented, undisciplined and even outlandish assaults to be made.

I suggest that any poster who feels restricted in pprune's policies take a quick jaunt to Yahoo forums, where true Yahoos can be observed, in the wild.

[copter]

<Incidentally, why in criticising the moderators of this forum, do you choose anonymity?>

Why shouldn't a punter be anonymous, especially if at least one of the moderators is?

[SASless]

Well said Nick, PPruners take their bashings with restraint in most cases......until I remind you of being a Cobra Jock....then maybe some corns get walked on! But in the end, we are all better off for it, right?

I kinda miss the old flame, fire,and shrapnel from the old-style Zuckerman/Lappos musing matches however. The place has been a bit dull for a while.....Len, hows about over-speeding Nick's rotors over something! We need a good arm waving....head shaking ....discussion of the fiiner points of helicoptering by you two.

[The Nr Fairy]

copter :

Given time, you'll work out who the mods are - they're not paranoid about anoymity. Helidrvr makes no secret, and Heliport is apparent after a while.

As for me - come to a Bash and find out !

[Heliport]

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.

These words at the bottom of each page are there because experience shows that, just occasionally, all is not as quite as innocent as it appears and people have their own reasons for wishing to stir up trouble.

We appear to have two 'new' contributors to Rotorheads, 'Captain 2per' and 'copter'. I say 'appear' because 'they' are in fact the same person using different names, and he is not 'new' to PPRuNe. His usual username has been disabled by PPRuNe Admin for reasons entirely unconnected with so-called 'censorship' issues on Rotorheads, and he has now re-registered under new usernames.

Monitoring a forum properly takes a great deal of time - a lot more than I thought when I agreed to take on the job, and even more time when a forum needs building up. Moderators are unpaid volounteers and, just like all the other Mods, I'm happy to give my time. What I am not prepared to do is waste time chasing one disgruntled individual around the forum playing 'Catch me if you can' or other games which seemed great fun when we were children.
He has his own reasons for wishing to undermine the success of this forum, and his efforts may well continue for some time yet. We know from experience he doesn't give up easily! :rolleyes:

[PPRuNe Towers]

A quick note to point out our support here in the Towers for Heliport's comments and his stewardship of the forum.

Those with any doubts in this may care to glance at the title below the name of your moderator. We have extended Heliport's moderating control beyond this forum to the entire site. This is in no way intended to drag him from your midst or dilute his time in developing your forum. He quite simply joins a very small but totally trusted group of long term PPRuNers who apply first aid and firefighting skills for us when Danny and I are out earning a living.

As far as the day to day running of our forums are concerned the moderators very rarely have to deal with the legal issues discussed earlier in this thread. I believe that Nick touches on the most important point - Moderation is really intended to maintain a decent signal to noise ratio on a forum and has been a principle of the site from day one.

At any given time some of you will be uncomfortable or even angry with the balance struck in a thread somewhere on the site. At such times Nick's reminder of what it's like elsewhere is very pertinent. Heliport moderates with a very careful and light hand - he instictively wants the forum successful - not stifled.

Let Danny and I continue to shoulder the legal squabbles in the that hope you all continue to enjoy a forum that is patently becoming an important force in the rotary world.

Rob Lloyd