Contentious subjects

[Guest]

If the UKAPS comitte are going to lock threads in off topic chat that have any sort of disagreement in them I think there should be transparency about exactly what the standards are for moderation and debate on the platform. I don't agree with much that's been said in some of the recent contentious threads but everything I've seen myself has been well within the realms of what I think must be considered appropriate civil discourse. I'm fine with the forum going either direction but I want to know.
If it's really the case that a pearl clutching vocal minority can simply have any thread that has opinions they don't like expressed in it locked then this will be my very last post on this forum and I'll delete my account as well as my posts . I'm not trying to exert any pressure and I don't have an overinflated sense of how valuable my contributions here might be but just on principle I cant and wont contribute on a platform where OP or anyone else isn't allowed to respectfully express his opinion or disagree with people on polarising subjects.
It would be completely different if people were injecting this kind of discourse into other subjects or threads but they're not and the appropriate solution is for people that have such a strong reaction to seeing people express opinions that don't align with their own to avoid those subjects not for the rest of us to be treated like children.
I'm also not looking to debate this with anyone but I want to know what the standard is by which threads are locked.

 

[Guest]

Actually never mind I've realised that it's completely unacceptable to me that they were pandered to by locking the threads so I'm deleting anyway. How do I actually delete my whole account?

 

[hypnogogia]

How do I actually delete my whole account?

There’s no way to do that.

 

[Guest]

alright I'll just do each post individually.

 

[hypnogogia]

If the UKAPS comitte are going to lock threads in off topic chat that have any sort of disagreement in them I think there should be transparency about exactly what the standards are for moderation and debate on the platform. I don't agree with much that's been said in some of the recent contentious threads but everything I've seen myself has been well within the realms of what I think must be considered appropriate civil discourse. I'm fine with the forum going either direction but I want to know.
If it's really the case that a pearl clutching vocal minority can simply have any thread that has opinions they don't like expressed in it locked then this will be my very last post on this forum and I'll delete my account as well as my posts . I'm not trying to exert any pressure and I don't have an overinflated sense of how valuable my contributions here might be but just on principle I cant and wont contribute on a platform where OP or anyone else isn't allowed to respectfully express his opinion or disagree with people on polarising subjects.
It would be completely different if people were injecting this kind of discourse into other subjects or threads but they're not and the appropriate solution is for people that have such a strong reaction to seeing people express opinions that don't align with their own to avoid those subjects not for the rest of us to be treated like children.
I'm also not looking to debate this with anyone but I want to know what the standard is by which threads are locked.

From what I have seen, threads have been locked when discourse has become personal or moved away from the OP.

 

[Guest]

Once I've finished deleting my posts I am still going to submit a request in writing that my account be deleted. I'm pretty sure it's covered by the right to erasure under the UK general data protection regulation.

 

[Maf 2500]

@louis_last The irony is that if topics on "political" subjects had not been allowed in the first place, this situation would never have arisen and you would not be in the process of deleting your account in protest at such threads being locked.

 

[Guest]

@louis_last The irony is that if topics on "political" subjects had not been allowed in the first place, this situation would never have arisen and you would not be in the process of deleting your account in protest at such threads being locked.

That's probably correct but I think it's a lot harder to identify what counts as "political" than you might think.

 

[john6]

We are censored enough in this so called freedom of expression country, we are all entitled to our own opinion whether people like it or not or agree or disagree. An opinion is just that, an opinion, if you don't like it then tough, it is saying that everybody should have the same opinion as everybody else.
If you don't want people to put their opinions forward then don't have an off topic section, keep it purely aquatic, otherwise accept and allow the fact that we all have different opinions on a multitude of subjects. I don't agree with a lot of things said on this forum but just because I don't agree doesn't mean the other person shouldn't have that opinion. There are lots of forums where people can say basically what they like, use them, Either allow people to air differing opinions or don't. JMO.

 

[PARAGUAY]

I started the thread Just Stop Oil the thread veered off the topic but l liked the fact that a discussion on global warming and climate change was taken up but l felt rightly or wrongly it wasn't really going anywhere and I requested the admin and committee close the thread,
I am confident they will act fairly in a way acceptable to all members, please reconsider Louis please reconsider

 

[AlecF]

I'd encourage anyone who gets to feeling like this to speak to the mods first. They are fair and helpful .There are often things that aren't know. Losing Louis, as with losing Maq, is a real shame. I second that, don't go.

 

[Miniandy]

Here's a third

 

[Guest]

I've individually deleted every post, link and picture or video I ever posted to the site and this will be my last post. Discourse, debate and especially free speech are personally important to me and I believe they should be to everyone. I've primarily done this in defense of someone who I don't even agree with because I really believe it matters that he's allowed to express his opinions.
Nobody who was complaining in those threads about the 'nature of the subject' would have been doing so if there had been 100% unanimous agreement on the issues so no matter how they might try and reframe it the complaints amounted to nothing more than "I lack the emotional maturity to interact with people holding opinions differing from my own and therefore this thread must be shut down or 'politics' banned from the forum alltogether" and it's manifestly absurd that this was immediately pandered to rather than them simply being encouraged not to deliberately and repeatedly expose themselves to clearly labelled and perfectly acceptable discussion that they would find triggering.
There has to be a line in the sand somewhere and this is just where I've chosen to draw mine. I don't overestimate my contribution to the forum but I know that it has at least some value because I've seen posts of mine from here linked elsewhere and appear in google searches and I've also given away plenty of free plants and fish over time. I'm not happy for the forum to even marginally benefit from my historic or ongoing participation in the context of this pandering.
There is nothing anyone could have said in one of those threads that would have bothered me in the slightest but I just can't tolerate the deliberate stifling of discussion and suppression of opposing views.

 

[Iain Sutherland]

Hi all,

Over the past few weeks there has been a lot of reports and concerns raised over topics/ comments in the Off Topic forum.

The problem being these threads are not appreciated by the whole community and they are becoming more prolific on the 'what's new' board than aquascaping threads. Frankly they are a distraction from the aims of the society and forum which is the committees priority.

The committee are actively discussing the future of the 'off topic forum', until then let's just get back to chatting about aquascaping and fish 👍

@louis_last if you would like your account deleting then please dm the committee. We would all rather that wasn't the case but respect any decision you may make.

 

[G H Nelson]

Hi Folks
It is best everyone calms down and takes a big deep breath!

 

[Guest]

It’s a great shame Louis @louis_last, but sadly I’m inclined to agree with you.

Having been at the sharp pointy end of this forum for many years I can see both sides. It is extremely difficult to tread the razor edge of responsibility and reasonableness needed to keep such a diverse and sometimes highly opinionated community moving in the right direction in harmony, especially in the “off topic / chit chat” forum. But somehow we managed.

However, recently it’s become apparent that UKAPS is no longer as diverse. I’m sorry to say that many key members, those that helped build this forum over many years, left during the summer because UKAPS lost something fundamental. And that is integrity and honesty.

Those key members maintained a balanced narrative with many qualities, not least common sense and humility, and I can't help thinking their absence has left a void that is now being filled with nonsense. This latest totalitarian manoeuvre, shutting down trending “off topic” discussions, because the opinions expressed somehow became “polarised”, or they somehow don't fit with the forums mission statement, is a very worrying precedent.

To be clear @hypnogogia , @PARAGUAY 's thread “Just Stop Oil Protesters" didn’t really veer off topic, climate change and global warming are natural progressions of the conversation.

And the only person that was being personally attacked was me. I’m big and ugly enough to hold my own ground, and don’t need you or anyone else to intervene on my behalf. The other conversation “I wonder if the BBC”, started by @Aqua sobriquet , became hijacked and I thought I’d successfully bought it back on topic. So why was this discussion also closed prematurely? This time by @shangman

Apparently the thread was shut down because, “…the Committee are looking into whether threads like these are beneficial for the community going forward.”

I’ve absolutely no idea what that means. Neither have I any idea how the moderating team intend to manage the “Off Topic” forum going forward. Who exactly gets to arbitrate what is considered a suitable topic of conversation? What exactly are your ethical metrics? How do you guard against bias etc. How do you propose to ensure that posts do not naturally progress to other topics as conversations so often do? Are you going to moderate them so tightly that any whiff of perceived provocation, no matter how banal, gets shut down immediately?

The only practical solution would be to shut down the entire “Off Topic” forum completely. And then you’d take much of the life blood out of the forum. UKAPS is a community and this forum gives members opportunity to get to know each other outside of the hobby, which I know is very important. That particular forum was the idea of one of the most respected members this forum has ever been privileged to count as one of its own.

But above all there is a fundamental principle at stake here, and to be frank, I find myself questioning whether I want my name associated with UKAPS. If this particular brand of censorship is all the moderating team and committee have to offer going forward I want nothing to do with it, and like @louis_last would want all my posts deleted.

I realise the law surrounding the right to be forgotten is not absolute. But given the circumstances perhaps I wouldn’t have such a difficult time convincing the ICO that my reasons were not manifestly unfounded or excessive. But perhaps that’s not the point. Perhaps I shouldn’t be placed in a position where I feel the need to in the first place.

 

[Maf 2500]

Hey, not meaning to hijack the thread, but @Iain Sutherland and the committee, can it be set such that posts in any threads in the off topic forum do not appear in the "what's new" board and the "recent posts" sidebar?

It seems that making this stuff less visible on the front page would make most of the distraction and disruption value go away in an instant, without preventing people exercising their perceived right to "Discourse, debate and especially free speech".

For the record, I am not personally offended by any opinions expressed in the contentious threads and did not want them closed or deleted, but equally I can see that others might not feel the same. In any case this stuff is a distraction from the real reason we are here which is the plants and fish and other aquatic life.

 

[Onoma1]

The vast majority of the posts in the off topic forum are polite, informed and respectful. It's an opportunity to 'talk' with forum members about topics beyond aquascaping. My personal view is that this helps build community, connection and understanding which is vital to maintaining a dispersed community of interest/ practice. It creates closer ties and a greater depth of engagement.

In terms of differing opinions, I fervently disagree with some of the opinions posted in the just stop oil thread, however, I also feel equally strongly that they have the right to express these views in discourse.

Equally, imo climate change is particularly pertinent to our shared interest of aquatic plants and it is a legitimate topic for the forum.

I am, however more concerned with the idea of an unelected committee making these kinds of strategic decisions and then informing people without consultation. If you want a community to work you need process, transparency and inclusivity in decision making.

 

[Courtneybst]

I have noticed threads on the 'Off-Topic Forum' wandering off course and into discourse more frequently as of late and I wanted to say my piece. This is not to say conversation cannot be allowed to naturally flow from topic to topic (of course it can), but there is more to it than that...

If the UKAPS comitte are going to lock threads in off topic chat that have any sort of disagreement in them I think there should be transparency about exactly what the standards are for moderation and debate on the platform.

Every member of this forum is entitled to an opinion, but please know this action was not taken because of any committee member's opposing views to the thread participants, but as a result of the atmosphere that was developing in the thread - and unfortunately it wasn't heading in a positive direction (beyond regular disagreements) and that serves no benefit to the members. The forum rules and guidelines state that it is in the Committee members, Admins and Moderator's interest to uphold this.

we are all entitled to our own opinion whether people like it or not or agree or disagree. An opinion is just that, an opinion, if you don't like it then tough

We are indeed John, but freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. We move through life holding our own opinions and expressing them, yet being mindful of how our words might affect others or be construed - UKAPS forum is not excluded from that. It's not a green pass to say whatever one wishes and label it 'free speech'.

UKAPS lost something fundamental. And that is integrity and honesty.

I have to fundamentally disagree, which is my prerogative as we've clearly pointed out. Yes, there was certainly uncertainty around the transparency of UKAPS in regards to its finances, but I'm failing to see how that applies to the whole forum. If you mean solely because of the finances, that would imply that there was never any integrity to begin with, which we know isn't the case.

When I log on to UKAPS I see a plethora of members with integrity and honesty sharing their passion every day and furthermore where the committee, mods and admin are concerned, I see a group of people who stepped in when the going got tough and have been working to improve UKAPS' financial state, online presence and ensuring that the forum is alive and well.

I thought I’d successfully bought it back on topic

Maybe so, but I actually found some of your comments (before they were edited) to be rather antagonistic and borderline threatening. These kinds of things are where it goes beyond debate and discussion and become inappropriate.

It's not just about what we say, it's also how we say it. If anything, the 'Off-Topic Forum' has brought to light that we should maybe think more about our intent when we make posts and not just the content. If the intent is not 'discussion', why are we writing it?

 

[MichaelJ]

The problem being these threads are not appreciated by the whole community and they are becoming more prolific on the 'what's new' board than aquascaping threads. Frankly they are a distraction from the aims of the society and forum which is the committees priority.

I totally agree Iain. Recently these Off Topic posts are stealing the show. The “show” should be about the one thing we all have in common and share a passion for - namely the hobby this site is dedicated to. There are literally thousands of rabbit holes ... um... I mean online outlets to "debate" all sorts of other topics - including politics, climate science etc. That said, I do like to have the Off Topic around for those topics and posts you just can't fit in, but at least are somewhat related to our hobby. I just think it should be kept casual and non-controversial .. I mean, no good member should ever be in a position to choose to leave UKAPS because of feeling mistreated on some totally unrelated jibber jabber! Not everything is a profound Freedom of Speech issue!

Cheers,
Michael