A question of credibility and integrity.

I was under the impression that one of the fundamental ideals behind QRZ was to accurately and honestly represent and reflect the ideals and opinions of the Amateur radio community. It's putting it mildly when I say that I'm very disappointed to discover the level of opinion and content manipulation that's now taking place here on QRZ.

Locking threads and/or deleting post's under the false pretext that they are either political in nature or that they border on personal attacks simply because the QRZ staff personally disagrees with it's message is not only unethical but it's contrary to the fundamental ideals on which amateur radio was founded upon.

In order for a post to be considered political shouldn't it actually discuss political subject matter, Likewise shouldn't a post that's labeled a personal attack actually be one? Obviously concept's that escapes some people.

While moderators and QRZ staff may have the right to delete any post they don't personally agree with. The simple fact is that abusing that right reflects poorly on the credibility and integrity of QRZ and it's staff.

 

Make your own forum. Make your own rules.

 

So... If that is true, then this thread should have a very short life?

I guess that we will see. Although I do agree with some of your points, it is also true that this place is not "public" in the sense that it is privately owned and controlled. Free speech and constitutional issues don't really apply to a privately owned web site.

Even with the sometimes uneven and capricious moderation seen here at times, this site is still head and shoulders above the competition.

73 Gary

 

That didn't take long. Interesting that out of all the forums I visit QRZ is the only one that continually needs to resort to using this excuse as a means of justifying deceptively manipulating the forums.

Now notice I didn't claim they don't have the right to do so. I'm simply questioning the ethics of doing so. How does this reflects on the amateur radio community as a whole. People come to QRZ to learn about amateur radio and the manipulation that takes place here results in a false and misleading perception of amateur radio.

It seems somewhat unethical for a web site to appear as though they honestly represent the amateur radio community when in fact all it really represents through manipulation and content filtering is the personal opinions of it's owners and staff.

The thread won't last long because it's taking an honesty and open look at what constitutes integrity and honesty and questions how far forum moderators should go in using their authority to push their personal opinion's

 

"Abusing that right..." And WHO decides if the moderators are "abusing" a "right?" Last I heard, Fred, AA7BQ, runs this board and makes the rules and his moderators and administrators enforce them. The only "rights" anyone has around here are at Fred's discretion.

We are guests here and are expected to comport ourselves according to the rules. Why this concept is so difficult for some people to understand is perplexing.

 

Hang on, hang on... your claim is that it represents the amateur radio community entirely? What you're asking for is an unmoderated free-for-all. After all, personal attacks are obviously part of the amateur radio community by that standard.

No, I've paid close attention to the moderation here, and while there's occasional tidbit where I might disagree, it is occasional. If a civil discourse can be had on a topic, it seems to be allowed to continue unmolested. Generally speaking, the problem arises when the discourse is no longer civil. In addition, certain boards are clearly labeled to be about radio, not about politics, so when someone adds a snark about, say, Global Warming or Al Gore or a veiled comment along those lines, it tends to garner a moderation.

As I said, sometimes, I might not agree. But, by and large, I see few cases of Opinion Moderation so much as Lets Not Get Personal Moderation. Keep it civil, talk about the issue, not the person, but by all means, keep it polite, and the threads seem to be given wide latitude.

Brian

 

Actually I'm starting to question the premises that a site could still be considered private when in fact it has become so large that the general public visiting the site is led to believe that the site itself honestly and accurately reflects and represents the amateur radio community as a whole. QRZ has become so large and powerful that there are actually amateur radio operators who believe that QRZ is the official FCC database and refuse to believe a newly licensed amateur radio operator is actually licensed simply because their call sign isn't yet listed in the QRZ database.

Basically I'm becoming uncomfortable with the idea that a mere hand full of people in control of a private web site have so much influence and control over the perception the visiting general public has on amateur radio. At what point does a site that represents amateur radio actually become responsible to the amateur radio community for accurately and honestly representing them.

 

I guess you have a REAL problem with the editors of QST and CQ, then.

 

George;
When we join a forum or any other community be it online or in 3D we connect to certain ground roles, practices, and customs that exist in the community, I know you know this but I wanted to couch what I'm going to say in this......

We all come together to share our common interests in and love for Amateur Radio. We also share bits and peaces of our lives and thoughts on subjects not necessarily related to amateur radio. I believe when you look at the big picture and compare The Zed to other forums this is the best place on the planet to carry out that end. Occasionally I get a post wiped (text removed and replaced with the standard boilerplate) I have found all but twice out of 12,200+ posts the mod in question was right in doing so. That is not a bad average, on the other hand I have left other forums where the care in moderation was not so careful or even handed.
I did question the actions of the moderators in question the answers I received were polite and I went away with the knowledge the staff here are competent and conduct themselves in a manner that is both respectful and in the best interest of the purpose of QRZ.Com.

It was only after dealing with the staff and experiencing their methods of dealing with potential problems that decided to become a paid member.

I hope you can engage or have engaged the staff offline and realize the caliber of those who have been selected to be staff members. This place isn't someone's half baked hobby, they have worked very hard to make this place a world class one stop shop for Ham Radio.

I might add after reading your last post; QRZ is as private as Wal*Mart, this is not a public site even though the public at large can use it.

Respectfully;
Sue

 

That's seems like an apples to oranges comparison. The general public doesn't have easy access to QST or CQ magazine while QRZ is merely a few keystroke's away. Furthermore it's common knowledge that magazine's are heavily edited and usually strongly reflect the opinions of the editors.

 

You love amatuer radio, it's all good. There are no bad moderators, only good moderators. You love QRZ, you love QRZ.

When I count to three you will awaken and feel calm and refreshed.

 

Except when the comment is made by a 'Super Moderator' himself.

Having posted that, this forum is owned by Fred, and therefore he can do anything he wants.
I hope that I am always able to decide for myself what is credible and what is not.

 

Where did you get your 'impression'?

Show me something in the rules or mission statement to support your impression, which I think you came up with on your own as a self suiting ideal.

QRZ is fundamentally a call sign look up site. The forums are only a small part of the site.

This forum, like most, is private property and the owner has every right to make any rule he wants to.

I like the new stricter rules. It seems to me like the ones that b**ch the most about the rules are the ones that find joy in harassing people and attacking their views. As far as I am concerned, anyone that doesn't like the rules here has the right to pound sand. If you want less moderation, go to eHam.

 

Sue as I said Basically I'm becoming uncomfortable with the idea that a mere hand full of people are in control of a web site that has so much influence and control over the perception the general public has on amateur radio.

As I said at what point does a site that appears to represents amateur radio actually become responsible to the amateur radio community for accurately and honestly representing them. It's not the moderation or the rules that are the problem, Its more a concern that the moderators are appointed.

Personally I think when an entity becomes so large that it appears to be the defacto representation of a group, Then that group should have a bit of control and input over the entity that represents them.

The easy way to do this would be to allow the amateur radio community to elected the moderators. The owners much like the president would still have veto power but it would then be the community that determines through their elected representation what is acceptable in the forums.

 

So, according to some criteria known only to yourself, when a site grows beyond a certain arbitrary size then it's supposed to start playing by another set of rules? And who, pray tell, makes those rules? You? Or the owner of the board? And how is the owner of the board supposed to know when he's supposed to change the rules?

If they believe that, then they have more problems than we can solve here.

QRZ gets its callsign info directly from the FCC database and there is a time lag between when the FCC updates its database and the data dump to QRZ. What part of that is difficult to understand?

QRZ.com is not the FCC. Anybody who believes that it is needs to have a legal guardian appointed to handle his affairs.

So what? Does it also bother you that the ARRL fits that same description? Or is it frustration that QRZs moderators don't want to play by YOUR rules?

This is a MESSAGE BOARD, with (excuse the expression), "all that implies." As suggested earlier, you're free to start your own competing message board or join another one already in progress. There are several.

Since you seem to know where that point is, please enlighten us.

Sounds like a personal problem to me...

Oh...before I forget...IB4TL!