Nothing to do with Music

[GuitarPhil]

This post has nothing to do with music. I expect it will be locked immediately by a moderator, despite 'The Lounge' apparently being intended as the place for various off-topic postings, jokes etc.

[Tab]

This site is about all things 'Shadows' - which includes the music.

More censorship!

[dave robinson]

I agree tab, but this business about censorship is a matter of opinion.
I deleted what I suspected was a thread based on dodgy information about Hank's personal life and health, that would have fast become a gossip thread. I had read somewhere that the information may have been flawed so if that was the case, the last thing I wanted to happen was a full blown discussion on something that really has nothing to do with anyone here.
To remove it isn't censorship, i call it common sense.
If all of this is true and I am mistaken, then I apologise for upsetting anyone, but for me it's better to be safe than sorry.

That said, I would like to know even if it is true, who would like to continue a discussion on this site about Hank's or any other member of The Shadows health and private lives. I certainly do not and if this is the way the site wishes to go, count me out. The site was originally created for music and I believe it should remain as such.

[Tab]

What bothers me about this, is not the subject matter - I believe that everybody has a right to a private life, even if they are in the public domain - but the decision to 'censor' is usually unilateral and not open to discussion. Threads are deemed inappropriate by one individual and removed or locked without consultation.

[hbmartin]

The intro on the home page of this site reads: "Hundreds of items of SHADOWS RELATED info, masses of pictures and all the Shadows Music you could wish to hear"

The story that appeared in the Daily Mail was Shadows RELATED. And the story is true. Hank is quoted throughout in the first-person with every comment from him in quotation marks. As Rob stated in an earlier post, Spencer Bright is a credible journalist and simply would not fabricate a story like this and then publish it in a national newspaper. Hank obviously decided to put the story into the public domain (for whatever reason he might have) and therefore must have expected people to discuss it. So what is the harm in doing that.

Please do not decide for others what they are reasonably allowed to discuss. There are enough Little Hitlers in the world as it is!

[Twang46]

What bothers me about this, is not the subject matter - I believe that everybody has a right to a private life, even if they are in the public domain - but the decision to 'censor' is usually unilateral and not open to discussion. Threads are deemed inappropriate by one individual and removed or locked without consultation.

Agree with this, however as this site is run by a group of "moderators" as they call themselves, it's their site & we all agree to rules when we sign up.
Some mods seem to allow more than others but as it seems any mod can lock/delete a thread that's the way it has to be & I have to go along with this if I choose to be a part of this site
Not happy about it as some threads seem to be deleted for the flimsiest of reasons given but that's the way things are these days.

Dick.

[dave robinson]

What bothers me about this, is not the subject matter - I believe that everybody has a right to a private life, even if they are in the public domain - but the decision to 'censor' is usually unilateral and not open to discussion. Threads are deemed inappropriate by one individual and removed or locked without consultation.

As moderators we are asked to assess a situation and do what we think best for the good of the site. I had complaints that this was a dodgy call and got rid of it before we were in too deep.
I didn't realise that I needed to consult anyone. If you are not happy with the way I deal with things you can complain to DM and Bob, but until I'm told otherwise I will try to protect the privacy of Hank, Bruce, Brian and any other members of the Shadows. If folks stuck to music there wouldn't be a problem, but gossip amongst the members here about anybody's private life is not acceptable to me as part of a music site. When we get something that is of this nature and folks send me messages that i t could be invading privacy, someone has to do something - I did.
If the rest of the management think I was wrong, I will accept what they say or think, but I don't wish to be put on the spot again and would be delighted to stand down as a moderator.

[Admin]

Consider the two extremes: That all moderation is turned off and any member can post anything anywhere guaranteed to remain where it is. Do this and the site will eventually be shut down and I will end up in serious trouble for allowing it. Alternatively we can go back to 'version 2' of ShadowMusic which was so heavily moderated that there were daily complaints and the content was ridiculous. Clearly we have to draw the line somewhere and that somewhere will inevitably be too tight for some and too lenient for others. We can't win and, for what it's worth, I think the current moderators do an excellent job making good judgement calls as and when required - whether or not some members object.

In fact, it is very rare that any kind of moderation is needed and used on this site. Invariably there are complaints when it is used and that is the right of the members to make such observations, provided always that such observations are made politely and in a civil manner.

One thing I can personally guarantee is that if a moderator decides that a discussion is unacceptable for any reason he has my full support for any action he chooses to take.

Bob.

[mojolomjl]

For what it's worth I agree with Dick, when we joined this site we agreed to abide by the rules.
If you don't like the rules don't join, or apply to be an administrator and experience what they
have to put up with.

[Alan Prudhoe]

Wot Bob said.