| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 129356 | 2013-02-20 02:34:00 | Discuss: The law, moaners, being PC, and where PF1 is headed | Chilling_Silence (9) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1329070 | 2013-02-26 20:24:00 | That's actually not a bad idea Paul.Cov! | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1329071 | 2013-02-26 20:28:00 | How about we have a sub-forum that only TEMPORARILY holds the content (Posts) that are determined to be potentially inflammatory. The sub-forum is essentially a destination for threads (ie Moved threads) that the moderators deem to be derogatory, or banging the same old drum, and a potential point for complaints. If the threads in there had a lifespan of 7 days since their last post, after which they fell into digital oblivion, then the OP could have the satisfaction of getting their post discussed, and getting stuff off their chest, while the mods and the Fairfax heirachy could relax in the knowledge that the venom in those posts is not going to be searchable for the rest of history, and they should be spared the big stick of the law. Any posters who keep revisiting their posts to 'Bump' them alive for another week could have their pointless bumps removed, and the thread then allowed to die. Isn't this a workable compromise, where everyone feels they've got a win out of it? I sure don't want most of the mindless chit-chat I have here to stay for eternity. So I'm proposing the Help forum be permanent, much of the Chat forum be permanent, depending on its content (ie keep the jokes!), and the moaning and PC lacking posts get the temporary treatment... like a chat session with limited permanence, and yeah, by all means keep this sub forum out of the reach of the Search Engines. Attempting to use logic and reasoning is always a welcoming read.... just hope the people in a position to make such a change are not religious, that never works with them. |
Disco_Dan (16576) | ||
| 1329072 | 2013-02-26 20:42:00 | I agree with Paul.Cov too. How soon can this be put into action? |
nedkelly (9059) | ||
| 1329073 | 2013-02-26 20:44:00 | The next step will be a poll of PressF1 members, followed by implementing the poll decision. We don't have a timeframe yet because we wanted to see how the discussion thread fared. We've had around 220 people view at least the first page of discussion. Our preference is to keep this open for other suggestions for another week, if that's okay, just to ensure that all active members have seen and had their opportunity to comment. |
Zara Baxter (16260) | ||
| 1329074 | 2013-02-26 21:02:00 | Where does the 220 figure come from? Last I checked this had over 3,500 views? :D | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1329075 | 2013-02-26 21:05:00 | That's the unique visitors to the thread page 1, from Google analytics. 3500 views includes repeat page views and multiple page views. 4812 |
Zara Baxter (16260) | ||
| 1329076 | 2013-02-26 21:14:00 | wow | nedkelly (9059) | ||
| 1329077 | 2013-02-26 21:29:00 | How about we have a sub-forum that only TEMPORARILY holds the content (Posts) that are determined to be potentially inflammatory. I’m sorry Paul but that is not possible as Someone, will be offended by Something, within the seven days and the Hypothetical Law will kick in leaving Fairfax open to massive imaginary Law Suits which in turn will seriously affect their Share Price and collapse the Sharemarket. Life can be such a challenge. :D |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1329078 | 2013-02-26 21:35:00 | Hey that's nifty! :D | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1329079 | 2013-02-28 21:52:00 | For those following along still: From aap "ONLINE MEDIA GETS COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE The 'big six' broadcasters have banded together to form a self-regulating online complaints watchdog which they hope will be the precursor to a complaints body to cover all online and broadcast media. OMSA - online media standards authority - has been formed by Radio New Zealand, Maori Television, TVNZ, Sky, Mediaworks and Radionetwork and will oversee online news and current affairs content standards. Interviewed on Radio New Zealand's Feb 17 Mediawatch, OMSA chair Claire Bradley, pressed by producer Colin Peacock, admitted that it could well be a step to a self-regulatory body for all broadcast and online media. But why could not the Broadcast Standards Authority expand to take in the online media? - he asked. 'We are opposed to a single regulatory body' she told him, adding that both the Press Council and the Advertising Standards Authority were self-regulating bodies but that the Broadcasting Standards Authority was formed by Government and therefore not self-regulated. 'We've been spurred into action by the Law Commission's paper "News media meets the new media" ' she said. 'We are opposed to a single regulatory body - they (the BSA) don't want to be joined at the hip with us.' OMSA's complaints committee consists of three industry representatives and three from the public, which also supplies its chairman, Sir Bruce Robertson. Broadcasting Standards Authority, Advertising Standards Authority, NZ Press Council, and now OMSA - that's four bodies covering complaints from one body of media, in a mix of self-regulation and government control. That's surely a work-in-progress." |
Zara Baxter (16260) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 | |||||