Jahanshah Javid

Deletion is equal to "Black Marking", period.

How did Islamic Rebublic of Iran justify "Black Markings" of pictures and newspapers? I wonder!

Nothing is sacred but "life".

An observation

JJ:

As usual, the twosome of n.zanincanada and Anonymouse are out again, belaboring no particular point at all, one demanding to be given more power on the site and the other using the medium for flirtation purposes. I am falling asleep, watching the same thing repeated over and over again, this time on the site Editor's post, where he is asking people to help promote civil and pertinent discourse on the site!

...

n.zanincanadai

Ok! US constitution is the third one on the list...But it is an intelligent law, very advanced on many levels.

Change of subject

"US constitution is the most intelligent piece of written word by human beings"

Say what?????

What about Cyrus Cylinder's declaration of human rights?

Or the universal declaration of human rights?

My last word on the matter

If being the subject of attacks was justification for being an editor, I would be close to the front of the line!

The whole point of my blog entry was that my comment to "John Carpenter" was deleted despite the fact that:

A) I did not use any profanity whatsoever, and:

B) I did not make any threats or engage in any abuse

I merely corrected another one of his many errors in fact that he is known for, telling him to go read a book, and I pointed out that I am aware that he uses multiple unregistered screen names. For that to be deleted is puzzling.

I think this is a great site. There's nothing else like it anywhere on the web. But I also see that there is so much more potential. And as long as this situation continues where what's ok this morning is taboo at 3:45 in the afternoon then ok again at 6:20 except on the 3rd Tuesday of the month, we'll be continuing to go in circles. 

Well...Anonymouse has some points.

I am a proponent of no-censorship, period. A writer should be mature enough to handle criticism or he can shut up. The writers should take criticism and even profanity as long as they take admiration and praises. This is the moral of the story.

From the technicality point of view, as soon as you start cherry picking what's wrong and what's right then you have to define what's wrong and what's right. You have to have a framework for it.But that takes you to another maze. The very right things that might be right to one it might be completely wrong to another. Believe me the argument of what is virtue, morality, and ethics and what is not been discussed for thousands of years amongst philosophers yet no answer.

But let assume that we manage to miraculously define what's right and wrong (which millions of thinkers yet to figure it out) then you have to find the right people to monitor it and then one day you realize that you need to monitor the monitor-er and then later to monitor the monitor-er's monitor and… the freaking thing goes on forever.

That's why US constitution is the most intelligent piece of written word by human beings.If we are not good at learning this basic, I repeat, basic law (the first amendment right I mean) of the society that we have lived in for years, then you tell me what we are good for?

Akhavan

What possessed you to comment?! What "noise"? Do you have your speakers on high volume?! If you don't know anything about a subject must you still comment?  At least register and then say something. Am I really making you that mad?! Akhey! Click away. Don't look.

When I say "Why not me?"  I mean why not everyone.  I'm advocating for everyone to have control over his or her contribution.  Everyone not a chosen few. Contributors are contributors.  Their talent may not be as good as the chosen few but their contributor blood is still red.

Midwesty jan you need to be more clear and say more.  Only JJ (and Hajiagha) has the right to speak telegraphically.  If you want a response say what you want.  Which part of what you are not comfortable with?

Jahanshah Jan,

I am not comfortable with this situation!

glad you're in a better mood JJ

it was hard to see my most benign comments getting deleted yesterday one after the other. I didn't think I deserved that but somebody has to be in charge and who better than you! Your decision was and is respected.

I just have one request: next time you are so fed up with us, would you please take a minute to take a deep breath, calm down, walk away, walk around, and then come back and delete me.

:-)

Mr Javid,I like that you are moderating 90% of comments.

It sounds fair to me, and I have no problem with it. 

I agree with your policy, since enforcing respectable communication will ultimately bring change in peoples responses. That is the way to go.

Respectfully,

Tahirih 

A suggestion

JJ:

It seems to me that all of this noise is caused by just a few people on this site. The most vocal one is Anonymouse. May I propose that you make Anonymouse an editor or whatever to enable him to moderate comments? Hopefully that will stop him from talking ad nauseam about the subject. "Why not me" has been driving his dialogue for so long, it is really so sad and so boring to read over and over again. Please put this man out of his misery immediately and spare the rest of us, too.

So Nazanin were you a volunteer?

JJ said "They" had editorial powers.  Does that mean you had intoxicating editorial powers too and ma khabar nadash-team?!

1) It's Nazanin Canadai,

1) It's Nazanin Canadai, not Canadai :) Naz naz or any varition of that is acceptable too. But leave the nationality out of it please :)

2) JJ I love it when you talk tough. Kheily sexy mishi :)

3) Anonymouse, hoselat sar rafteh? Alaki dava rah mindazi.

Word

The difference

Being a subject of attacks isn't a good reason to become an editor.  Who in this site has never been attacked one way or another? Furthermore, it is not whether that would be a good reason, it is the question of whether it is fair to other contributors not to be able to delete comments on their own contributions.  They are contributors, right?  Everyone's blood is the same color, right? Anyway, that is bygone but I hope you get my point about how unfair it was.

As for what would be the difference if we know who the 5 or 6 chiefs are, well we know you right? We all criticize you and talk to you and you respond and we move on. You have done this for ever so we are comfortable with you.

If we know who another chief is, I can talk to him/her and let him know what I think.  I don't think it is fair in this medium to have ghost editors.  If there were dozens of paid editors and hundreds of thousands of users yes.  But here in this website, it is almost like a family, like a group of friends.  Besides, there have been many reports of deleting recently. 

Of course even if we know the chiefs they are not going to admit what they have deleted. But when we see them around we know they are az-ma behtaroon!

JJ, I appreciate your work

JJ, I have been looking for an opportunity to say this ..., I sincerely appreciate how well you have run this place and evolved it by implementing reasonable checks.
My statement is not exactly in your mentioned category "..give us something that would add to our knowledge, correct mistakes with kindness and generosity." but I request for an exception!
--best

Volunteers

Thanks Anonymouse. I gave editorial rights to many writers who were the target of constant abuse. I could not moderate everything on my own. I wanted these writers to be able to contribute to this site without being trashed all the time. Experience showed that it was not the right decision and I took away some of the editorial rights such as ability to delete comments. Now only I and a few people can do that.

As for who the chief editors are, they are volunteers. They are not paid, they are not part of the iranian.com staff in any official capacity. I have no problem naming them. But that is a decision for them to make. If they wish to be known, they can write a blog or... and let themselves be known. And what's the difference? How is revealing their names going to help anything? Ultimately I'm the one responsible.

People will never change

JJ people will never ever change. Some people may change their view and approach but others will come in and follow the same path that the changed person has abandoned.

These kinds of attitudes are always going to be there.  Come on you know better than that.  Do you expect us to become "good" because you say so? No.  The things that have been going on here will go on for a long long time.  Maybe some day down the road some people get tired and run out of things to say and we'll see less of these attacks or misbehaviors but that is going to take a long time.

The issue are not the people, the issue is how fair you are going to be.  I never had any problem with you being the Editor and deleting comments.  I have always said JJ can delete anything for what ever reason and I consider that to be fair, certainly how we've learned fair here in America.

The issue is you giving powers to people we don't know or if we do they were/are anonymous.  I mean Ben Madadi says he had editorial power.  Why?  Why him and not me?  I didn't or don't want editorial power over other people's articles.  But I think as a minimum I should have editorial powers over my own blogs.  Why should he and not me?! Do you know what I mean?  That I consider to be very unfair.

I feel better that there are 5 or 6 chiefs.  That number is manageable, but I think it would be fair to know who they are.  I can guess couple of them.  What is the point of keeping them secret?  When many other newly minted editors had powers and we didn't know about it, was that fair?  How did that end up? If you want us to be fair, then be fair yourself.  Practice what you preach.

Re:

Dea JJ, I used to have those powers too and I don't anymore but I was very very uncomfortable with the power of deleting comments because I was definitely, by definition, subjective about comments under my own articles. I think I deleted only two or three (or about) comments, including one of my own. And I deleted 2-3 comments from other article. It's now better that I don't have that power but comments are filtered before appearing. However they say (some people) that GOOD, or quality, writers have disappeared because of the rude comments. I don't mind these comments much but if it bothers some people I think we ought to give them the possibility. But even before there was the letters section where people could send their arguments against some article. And you chose which ones to post. But those letters were not under the articles. I think you could do something to give LESS weight to comments, less visibility etc, because they do indeed have LESS weight.