The BBC

This may be a strange question, but what governs the Unacceptable Phrases? I've had posts rejected and then with single alterations accepted - the offending words having included Corporation, Armando Iannucci, Production Team and Together. I'm fascinated as to the criteria used!

Add to the list the phrase "I know"!

Ooh, who do you think is a cheat, Giz?

For a start, can the e mail saying why a post has been removed, please say just that and not list all the other reasons why posts are removed?

That can't be too difficult, surely?

For example, last week someone made a very rude reamrk to another poster. I suggested an apology and quoted the offending message. Hiss/hesr and mine were removed. There was no other reason than the quote, why mine should have been removed but the e mail listed the whole lot, which were inapplicable and annoying.

The apology was given and the poster explained, using the same words, that they are commonplace to him/her.

I have just looked and find it hard to believe that the apology, with the offending words is still there!

So secondly some consistency please. Don't remove at all, if you are going to allow them to reappear and remain again later.

Thank you Paul, have fun!

And do the mods have a set of criteria which they use to decide whether to remove a post? There have been occasions when a mod has decided not to remove a post but if it is yiked again then it is removed. So is it an autonomous decision by the mod?

Firstly, I'd like to say that Sarah is doing a good job - firm but fair.

Quoted from this message

Thank you sploink! Thats good to hear

This may be a strange question, but what governs the Unacceptable Phrases? I've had posts rejected and then with single alterations accepted - the offending words having included Corporation, Armando Iannucci, Production Team and Together. I'm fascinated as to the criteria used!

Quoted from this message

Hi Justpolina

None of those words are on the list for the filter. We do get reports of random words getting blocked, so there does seem to be a bug but we've been unable to replicate it (and fix it) despite much testing. The fact that you can post them now should prove that it's not deliberate. I'll raise it again with the development team just in case it's slipped down the list.

Paul

Hi Paul,

It wasn't actually any of my posts I was referring to - I'm one of the good ones!

But I have noticed a few posts getting removed VERY quickly. Far quicker than should be the case if only posters, lurkers and Hosts are pressing the red triangle - and when that happens the posts are usually Hidden and referred, not immediately removed.

Another question, if you don't mind: Is the same moderating company modding every BBC board? If yes, are they given different rules for each board?

Thanks

My query is about lack of consistency.
For Example off topic posts.
Cricket Angel and I were involved in a rather silly, but harmless bit of nonsense about llamas. There were about 20 posts, all as daft as each other and 2 get removed. Why?
Would it not be possible to let harmless but slightly off topic posts remain? particularly if it is a quiet day?

We were told we now only had reactive moderation, we took that as meaning a post would only be removed if a user reported it by pressing the triangle.

Quoted from this message

Hi Giz (and Cricket Angel)

We've added some clarification of reactive moderation to the help page here:

www.bbc.co.uk/messag...

Even on reactive boards some messages will be looked at by the mods without being complained about by the public - we might set particular words, phrases or users to be post-moderated, and of course hosts may alert posts. Obviously the BBC reserves the right to view or remove any content posted to the website - we have to take the flak for it, so we'll have a look if we want

The important thing to remember is that the majority of posts aren't looked at, so the users have to make sure they alert anything they feel breaks the rules.

There's a page on defamation here:

www.bbc.co.uk/messag...

Your question is similar to the myth about using 'allegedly' - just saying that you THINK someone is a cheat does not stop the post being potentially libellous - you might be able to use a fair comment defence in court if that person had a history of dishonest behaviour, or there were accusations about him, but generally this would be potentially libellous. We'd also consider other factors when assessing the risk, such as how serious the accusation is.

When it comes down to it, something is only proved to be libellous in court, and we'd be wasting your licence fees if we let ourselves be dragged into the dock repeatedly because of messageboard or blog comments. So we remove content because we feel the *risk* of it being libellous is unacceptable to the BBC and the poster. For more on this, you could have a look at the blog post and the comments here:

www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/...

Paul

PS (I have to point out that nothing on this page constitutes legal advice!)