Thanks for blogging this, cel4145. I must admit the topic is fascinating to contemplate. On the one hand, I can symphathize with people who think that the forum owners/admins ought to have full control over who is allowed to post, which posts are allowed, and when to pull the plug. One thing that has been revealed lately on Armchair Arcade forum concerning this matter is that the admins were deleting posts and topics they didn't like all along for the silliest of reasons (i.e., they hate Nintendo, so every pro-NES post/thread was instantly deleted, as were any public rejoinders.) Of course, someone could argue that this conduct is acceptable because the forum is owned/maintained by someone else, at his/her own expense, so the participants have no rights (if they want total freedom, they can setup their own forums, etc.) The REALITY is that these communities seem to spring up in the most unexpected places--I wouldn't find it hard to imagine some 12-year old child's web forum suddenly developing into a rich and diverse online community. Once those people are there, and enough time has elapsed to build a solid community, it's a shame to see it all wasted by that child's whim.

There is something here that I might call a "Rhetoric of Pruning" that leads casual users to a false idea of what a community discourse is all about. By secretly deleting certain posts and banning posters, the admins are able to dominate and manipulate the community without having to actually ADD anything to that discourse. Thus, this rhetoric is entirely negative, consisting purely of banning/deleting. From this perspective, shutting down the forum was just one more rhetorical move, though only time will tell if it had a positive or negative effect on the show's ratings.

It wouldn't be hard to see how this "rhetoric of pruning" could lead to some very nasty effects. Imagine, for instance, if I built a community around "Composition Methods" and secretly deleted all posts (and banned posters) that endorsed expressivism. People may come to believe that expressivism is simply an extinct topic of discourse. Even more nefarious would be deleting/banning a certain race or creed, or even sex.

As you and Clancy know well, I was a big fan and supporter of the show, as were my two co-editors of Armchair Arcade. This move took everyone by surprise and has led to great anger and feelings of betrayal.

http://armchairarcade.com

So true. One can easily argue that members have no rights, but I do think there's an ethical obligation on the part of site owners to implement and set up policies and notify users. And I would have to recognize that sometimes site policies may be implemented along the way. So in the case of Retrogaming Radio, the question is--and you can answer this better--did the site owners warn that they might close the forums? If not, it would seem that site members deserved to know that this might happen.

And I like the "Rhetoric of Pruning" concept. By choosing what to delete and banning posters, site owners certainly are affecting the community discourse. Perhaps there, too, is an ethical consideration. Is this pruning done with the community in mind, in what is in the best interest of the community? Or is it done strictly within the agenda of the site owners? If the latter, perhaps it is best associated with censorship, and in that regard, an affront to the free speech rights of a community? These rights might be expected by community members, although, of course, not guaranteed. Site owners are perfectly able to be totalitarian in their administration of their community; users need choose only not to be a part of it.

If you want to find out about the intellectual property rights of user members, you might subscribe to the digital-copyright list. I wouldn't post about the ethics of the issue--that doesn't seem to be their focus at all--but I think you could get some useful feedback on what IP rights community forum members might have. And the list might enjoy discussing whether or not former community members can ask that their IP be returned to them or removed.

Thanks for the heads up. The problem at RGR was essentially with the "producer," who seemed to feel it was necessary to delete posts that didn't conform to his strange views on site appropriateness. He was never willing to let the community well enough alone; at all times, his hand was there, guiding, shaping, and intruding upon our conversations.

I compared the situation to what might take place at a house party. The guests get into a rich conversation that, for whatever reason, the host doesn't find rewarding. Rather than politely stand by, the host begins systematically asking people to leave and then, when it becomes obvious that the spirit of the party has turned against him, announces the whole affair over and orders everyone off his property.

I'm not even talking about law or ethics here; I'm taking this to the level of simple courtesy. From a certain perspective, someone's web forum/blog/wiki is like a person's home. Other people may be welcome, but there should be a level of decorum. For instance, consider this blog (cyberdash). I don't feel I have the right to just barge on here and start posting comments willy nilly. Likewise, you probably view people here as your guests, who are welcome to visit and comment, yet should be content to be guests and not try to usurp your authority (i.e., a guest in your home starts rummaging through cabinets or, worse, the fridge!)

The hosts of RGR seemed to think that we were basically wearing out our welcome and disrespecting our hosts. Very well. What's interesting is that, speaking as someone without a fixed idea of what "my home" is, (I moved out when I was 17, been on my own, in various apartments/trailers what not since), I don't share the same view. My friend and fiance both have a key to my apartment and come and go as they please. Many other friends may choose to spend the night or come over to use one of the computers. They even make themselves meals from the fridge, though if they do this, I don't mind asking them to pick up the tab next time (which they do willingly). Anyway, I've never felt that the presence of guests in my home was some sort of intrusion, or that I should force them to always defer to me or treat me in some reverential manner. Just because I'm pissed off at my friend doesn't mean I'm going to ask him to leave. Chances are, if I'm really pissed, it'll be me that hits the roads for awhile until I cool off.

I remember one time I stayed over at one of my professor's homes during a conference. Actually, it was his in-laws home. Anyway, we were sitting around, drinking some good beers, and having a good time. At one point I started to put my feet up on the couch (I didn't have shoes on) and the professor asked me (quite kindly) to put my feet back down and remember I was a guest in this home. Instantly, my comfort level was shattered, and I was desperate to get the hell out of there. I made a silent vow then not to place myself in that situation again--better to just rent a motel/hotel than have to stay in "formal guest mode" during my relaxation time.

I guess what I'm saying is that, generally, I'm pretty careful about who I say "make yourself at home" to because, when I do, I mean it. :-)

http://armchairarcade.com