I would like to proffer some thoughts in my capacity as a regular blog writer for Write out Loud in fair response to Graham's post about the moderation procedure, since removed. I feel I should try to present a case which, in view of recent extreme events seems to be necessary to restore a sense of balance and fairness. I have already sparked off some comments so feel somewhat responsible for whatever has followed them.

Since being introduced to the site by Greg Freeman, I have been hooked on posting poems and enjoying responses to them sometimes experiencing withdrawal symptoms after periods of writers' block or for other reasons for not using the site. I would say that most poets are loyal as the freedoms are widely appreciated and of course given at no charge, a really useful resource for us poets.

Some contributors relish the grand strokes of nature poetry, others use humour to cheer us up as we read; others work through difficult personal issues and receive benefits from reactions to them. All this is as it should be.

Also on the agenda can appear darker works taking on the unpleasant facts of life: violence, abuse, racism, systemic hypocrisy and mind control etc etc. Some of these are backed up by real experience, hard gained and not easily forgotten with the ongoing curse of PTSD or other mental problems. Again WOL serves its purpose. A rare resource has been those exposed to the brutalities of conflict who have given us the opportunity for assimilating some of those hard indigestible nuggets and help themselves and others by sharing those stories.

We know that one such poet is no longer able to use the site due to apparently overstepping the rules and regulations which I have read through with some difficulty as to how they would impact in individual cases. His eradication appears to be a total excommunication. My point would be that rules by their very nature can be as restrictive as they are helpful and can conflict with the spirit of free expression. If political correctness is observed as a priority we should all be worried, especially when less impactful poetry is often posted which is far more gratuitous and tries to flout the more sensible restrictions offered by the rules and regulations, testing the resolve of those who run the site and lowering the ethics of true poetry.

Others have been sufficiently incensed by the strict application of the rules in various ways and have removed themselves; we shall miss their contributions.

Sadly, a locked door cannot be forced open. Currently I feel rather depressed having become somewhat disillusioned by the apparent inflexibility on show. My motive for writing this is not entirely selfish but to support freedoms which I and others cherish. I am not one to often challenge political views in my writing ; but nevertheless I confess to feeling rather uncreative as a result of what I regard as a malaise.

I hope my comments will not be regarded as inflammatory.

Thanks for reading.

Personally I think the principle of moderation should be extended beyond WOL to literature in general.
They should seriously take a look at
Baudelaire’s The Carcass
Hugo Williams’s Toilet
Gary Pucket and the Union Gap’s Young Girl
Nabukov’s Lolita
Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet
I am pawing over many more works of offensive depravity but that should be enough to be getting on with.

Ray - I was thinking of writing something similar to your opening gambit, but I think you have got it covered. The only thing I would add - I find it disturbing that Graham's is the only 'voice' we have heard on behalf of WOL. To my mind this smacks of cowardice and leaves him 'out to dry' to some extent, although I don't think he helps his own cause - see his post yesterday on the Poetry Blogs section entitled 'Jackals and Worms'. Whether he is being trolled or not, I feel he should not be responding on this platform in what seems a pointed and possibly misguided way.
Rob (gone but not quite dead yet)

Ray,

"If political correctness is observed as a priority we should all be worried, especially when less impactful poetry is often posted which is far more gratuitous..."

In light of the subjective nature of recent actions taken by "the site", I take this as a general warning not to get on the wrong side of the moderators. A title and a delete button do not a proper moderator make. Furthermore, what is occurring on WoL at the moment seems more like a personal censorship campaign to silence dissent rather than a series of objective decisions.

And John, as cutesy as your approach is, you definitely have a point.

And Rob, GSs recent post does seem to be misplaced and incendiary at such a time when not a single person who has any authority on this site has spoken in any direct manner.

Do all of the people who run this site take some sort of secret oath that prevents them from answering the concerns voiced by contributors? Because that's how it looks from here. Either that or there isn't a single one of them that has an opinion, which seems even more careless.

I think in my time on WOL I have seen three bans/suspensions...call them what you will.
All deserved IMHO.

Brian, I must cut in here. A word is only "offensive" if it causes offence. With all due respect, if you'd said " I regard" or " in my opinion" that would be fair enough. You can't dictate for others I'm afraid, however cherished are your limits on the use of language. You are entitled to reject a word in principle, but how can you enforce it? I feel we should "moderate" our own poetry and comments before releasing them into the wild, but deplore the fear behind the use of words that might upset the conventional status quo. (Another horrible expression). As for the serially offensive nature of that poem I am sorry you couldn't see it as a work worthy of reading and learning from. I hope my comment is not offensive to you; sometimes it is a risk worth taking when expressing heartfelt thoughts.

Ray...the poem wasn't offensive to me. I actually thought it had merit. The word is offensive, and no I can't produce reams of evidence to prove that. In my youth we routinely referred to black people using the word...we didn't use the n-word because that had already been outlawed. As with other terms which have become non-PC, this word in question has also become unacceptable. But I don't believe Wolfgar was banned for just the use of the word...his track record was probably a factor. Martin may be best placed to comment further as he seems to know what was/is in the author's head.

Regarding my sensitivities on use of language, there is only one word that is beyond the pale for me...you know what it is, I've been quite honest about it on several occasions.

Ray - I've no axe to grind with you. I hold your work in high esteem and have no wish to fall out, but I have my opinions as you have yours.

Ray, words are only offensive if they cause offense you say, but surely those words (whether in a transparently thin context or not) shouldn’t be allowed to be thrown out into a public forum such as WOL to await someone to take offense!
Were I a person of colour (I believe that is the currently acceptable term being used) seeing words of the like that have recently been used and moderated on here, my offense is immediate and cannot be taken back. We have members of all races, creeds and colour, so to use globally accepted ‘racist’ terminology should never go unchallenged. Furthermore, I would recommend anyone who uses them on their own personal blogs, put some kind of pre-warning to alert visitors to such abuse.

If I may, I would like to steer this discussion back to the moderation of WoL. My personal feeling is that Graham has shown by his re-posting of "Jackals and Worms" in the climate of dissent regarding his actions on Wolfgar's account that he is not capable of impartial moderation. Perhaps the silent and shadowy owners of WoL should consider a moderator less sensitive and reactionary. I say this not as an attack on Graham, but as an observation on how I believe a "moderator" should conduct business.

That being said, Brian - I have used the outlawed "N" word in a poem here on WoL and was never once called out for it. Not by you, not by Graham, not a wince from anyone. This shows that the standards here, and the penalties meted out are not consistent.
This community goes by the name "Write out Loud". We should not expect then to be silenced. We must never write timidly in fear of judgement. Doing that denies history, denies progress, denies the evolution of ideas. Tyranny is tyranny and must be called out.

Respectfully,

D

Devon I am sorry to have to correct you. My piece "Jackals and Worms" referred to my being trolled on my own personal blogsite. As you do not have access to what was being trolled (or perhaps you have) you cannot possibly know who or what was the content.

Surely I am at liberty (as a member of WOL) to write what I wish, about what I wish or would you censor me?

Graham,

I am not a troll, nor would I censor you. I was remarking on the timing of the poem and the impact of it, given the current climate and your role as a moderator.

In your prior comment however, you indicate that a poet, if using language that may be deemed "offensive" should provide a "trigger warning". If memory serves, Wolfgar did just that very thing. He was cognizant that his words may be taken out of context and provided plenty of detail on the content and context of the poem.

What saddens me the most about this entire affair is that what I believed was an open community to share and discuss poetry, whether it be light verse, dark politic and everything in between has revealed itself to be a place of squabbling, backstabbing under thin veneer of civility.

Respectfully,

D

Once again Devon, I feel I must, for clarity correct you. I actually said,

'Furthermore, I would recommend anyone who uses them on their own personal blogs, put some kind of pre-warning to alert visitors to such abuse'.

Poets personal blogs, the clue is in the title, not on WOL.

I think you'll find that in general WOL is a good place and most of the squabbling and backstabbing is being done by a small cabal of disaffected members and pre-members often operating under thinly disguised names, whoever they are...past or present!

As news and reviews editor of Write Out Loud, and thus a member of the website team, I have naturally kept an eye on the discussions on this topic. One barb that struck home to some extent, administered by one Write Out Loud user who left the site, but then felt compelled to come back and have at least one more go, was that the rest of the Write Out Loud team were not stepping forward to take part in the discussion, and allegedly leaving our tireless moderator, meeter and greeter, and general cheerleader for all regular Write Out Loud users, Graham Sherwood, “out to dry.”

I felt it was time to remind everyone of one, overriding principle as I see it – that the moderator’s decision is final. If not, how can this site properly operate? By all means, appeal privately to the moderator, argue your case, but at the end of the day, if the moderator remains unconvinced and unmoved by your arguments, his or her decision has to be accepted. If you still don’t like it, you are free to leave. Let everyone else get on with writing and posting their poetry, which is one of the things that this site is about.

I do also have a view on the particular issue in this case, of choice of language. It is true that the word that is now quite rightly deemed to be deeply offensive was regularly heard on the BBC in the late 1960s emitting from the ‘comic’ character Alf Garnett’s lips. We have moved on since then, to the extent that the word is now completely unacceptable, whether “in context”, or not. Some people like to call this stance “political correctness”, or depending on their viewpoint, “political correctness gone mad”. In my opinion that reflects an inability to accept that attitudes change, and that the world moves on. Those attitudes may change back again, if we are overwhelmed by a rising tide of far-right populism, but I sincerely hope not.

So I’m happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with Graham. He is such an indefatigable advocate for Write Out Loud users that he and I have crossed swords on at least one occasion. That in no way diminishes – it actually increased – my admiration for the work he does on this site. (He has his meeting and greeting work cut out these days, with new profiles popping up all over the place, and ‘sleeper’ ones suddenly being activated. Whatever is going on?)

It’s good that people care passionately about this site. Accusations of Orwellian censorship have been bandied around, but it may be rather that we have shown too much tolerance in the past, which has led to accusations of inconsistency when we do react, a fairly easy charge to lay at anyone’s door at any time. We take comfort from the vast majority of Write Out Loud users who have chosen not to weigh into this discussion, fascinating though it is for some of its participants. Maybe it will run and run, with new characters and personalities joining in all the time, like the Jarndyce and Jarndyce court case in Bleak House, until almost everyone has forgotten what it was originally all about. Who knows?

My final judgment is that the reaction of the moderators is disproportionate to the "offense" and was unnecessary. You could have shut down Wolfgar's profile and prevented further contribution from him without deleting all of his words. I really don't see how any one of you could have such a heart as to do that to any human being except in cases of true depravity, and especially to any who have been so open about their lives. As many people as I have read on this site who have offended my personal sensibilities on an almost daily basis, I wouldn't wish such treatment on them.

His final post may have broken your "T&Cs" but there is no sufficient defense for your action. A great number of his blog posts and comments were positive and encouraging to more than a few people, myself included--I am heartbroken and angry to have lost them.

Another well-thought set of arguments, Devon. I'm only disappointed to see that, once again, they haven't been addressed. And, I don't hold any hope that they will be addressed, leaving me to believe that no one with WoL is capable of addressing them in an effective manner.

Thank you elPintor.

I agree with and support all of your thoughts on the matter. Thus far, we have heard nothing that justifies the erasure of Wolfgar's work. We have heard nothing but this is our place, these are our rules, our decisions are final. And, the icing on the cake, "If you still don't like it, you are free to leave." Jesus, how many times have I heard that, here in the States from those that do not wish to be challenged on their decisions, beliefs and actions. The founders and moderators of this site must realize that though WoL is privately owned, they built a space for public discourse. And though that discourse may be uncomfortable at times, it comes with the territory.

As you have, I have read plenty of things that offend me, primarily in the comments sections of poems. Most often I simply moved on, allowing the individual her/his views. Like you, I would never presume to expunge their statements from the record.

Greg has made it perfectly clear in his statement that nothing will come of our outcry and that we are "free to leave." Personally, I find the final paragraph of his statement both offensive and smug.
That final paragraph sums up the attitudes of those in charge of this site, sadly.

Respectfully,

D

There is a further point which follows from one elP makes above.
I, as I suspect most, almost always create and save my poems as a Word document. But not all need necessarily do so. Sometimes I post directly onto the site’s blog.
Unlikely though it is, if Wolfgar did so too, the moderators may have deleted his entire life’s poetic works.
It would be nice to think they checked with him.

There is now a caveat on the welcome message to alert new users to keep a reference copy of their work.

I feel the need to point out that this thread has now been heavily edited as a banned member has been using a false profile to masquerade as another member.

I am sorry for any disruption that this causes.

Graham, you've proven what you're capable of. We are all well aware of your great moderating powers now.

I'm afraid so Devon, an insane amount of eradication for an insane amount of unwanted spam! It's been a busy night.

Poetry or any art is always subject to scrutiny. I have not really been following the agenda lately but I do know that I miss the contributions of those who have been banned and or left. I hate politics....and drama...! Political correctness has its place and we should all be aware of the feelings of others, but sometimes it does go too far. Some issues do need to be addressed and opinions will always differ.
Life.....it is full of complications, implications, insinuations and manifestations.
My motto has always been "if you don't like it....don't look!"
I also do understand the moderators discretion as this is a public space.

My best to everyone. Hope you are all well.
Lisa

No one but the person who wrote them and the one who deleted the comments will ever know what their nature was, now. You did a fine job of getting rid of the evidence.

You aren't making your case, Graham. Furthermore, this pattern of behavior is unflattering to both your title and the site.

Where's your proof?

How many people are targets of your suspicions and deletions?

Wow, now my words have been stricken. I see the response, but not my statement. This is clearly a flailing.

Let us, however, return to the source of this outrage. Wolfgar posted a poem exposing the long term damage that war tears into the souls of those that experience it, firsthand. Wolfgar, knowing that a certain word could cause some unease amongst the readership of WoL, placed qualifying statements regarding the intent of the poem in order to put the word in context.

The original post was then deleted, quickly by the moderators. Wolfgar then re-posted the poem, and the qualifying statements in the comment section of the deleted post. Which, as a result, he was banned, excommunicated, exterminated, from WoL.

But let me ask you this. If you were to be silenced, if your voice was stricken from the record for simply speaking truth plainly, unabashedly, how would you respond? Would you simply walk away, cowardly, ashamed at your perceived offense? I don't think any of us would. At these those with a spine.

I, myself, would rather be torn down for simply standing than never standing at all.

D

Devon if you want to be a champion for someone who has been banned get your facts right otherwise it makes you look badly advised.

Graham, as you have taken it upon yourself to edit this discussion down to the bits you wish to be displayed for popular consumption, I cannot take anything you say here seriously. You have rewritten the facts to your own end, therefore, you are absolutely free to call my statements spurious. However, I watched these events unfold in real time. I have read the communications between Wolfgar and the Mods. My statement stands, of course, unless you opt to delete it.

D

The only edits are of a banned person masquerading as another!

Is there definitive proof of that masquerade Mr Sherwood or is that another assumption on your part. Is Technical data available (can we see it) or are we to place our trust in you? is there a guideline that covers an occurrence of masquerading? I wonder how many people here are using names other than their own, is that illegal under WoL guidelines also? your making this up as you go along aren't you. I'll give this comment about 20 mins at most before you hit the red button again.

I have to say dear Ran that having checked you out, you appear to have been a member of very few words prior to this post. Two precisely . How come you’re so interested in this debacle all of a sudden?

Graham, there are plenty of people who choose to observe and participate only when there is a matter of interest to them. I've watched for weeks at a time without contributing. Furthermore, there are plenty who join in only during discussions.

Why should this bother you?

And, I've seen more disappear from this site than those posts of Wolfgar and the current target of your suspicion.

Graham,

Debacle - noun - a great disaster or complete failure. I like your word choice there.

D

Well Mr Sherwood it's a very interesting subject, (the pieces of it which remain intact that is) is there a problem with my joining in, don't you welcome discussion at WoL? I suppose you could always randomly exclude me with some newly made up dictatorial rule signed off by some invisible executive authority.

I note as per usual you fail to address one single item presented before you, just more smug conceit...you are very amusing Mr Sherwood.

Incidentally, you appear to have been a member at WoL since 2009 and your profile contains a mere 46 words and a single link. I do recall Wolfgar's profile, he had been on the site considerably less time than yourself and had contributed a profile offering great amounts of personal detail, all of which was obliterated in a single press of your delete button Mr Sherwood.

Maybe I'm here because I care about people being treated with respect and fairness and not knee jerk cruel actions. Maybe I think it a shame when voices are scrubbed without any recourse.

Will you be in Marsden?

I don't really think my specific identity is of particular importance, certainly any assumption on your part that you are seeing behind masks appears laughable. In the true sense of hiding and wearing a mask I think it more probable it is you who is masquerading. I'll stick around for now if it's OK with you, anticipating some genuine responses seems a hopeless expectation though.

I have read, with interest, the posts on this debate and, with amusement, the bullet point guidelines below this window. WOL deleted my profile for challenging and questioning the integrity of the then recently introduced POTW which I highlighted openly and transparently. My questions went unanswered. WOL did not see the funny side of my wordplay on the WOL title and asked me to apologise. I refused but agreed not to blog on their platform going forward. I specifically requested that you did not delete my profile. When you deleted my profile you stripped me of my thoughts, feelings and emotions during a very strenuous and challenging part of my life. By deleting my profile you removed a period in my life where I felt the urge and very much needed to write. May I ask, if I were a painter would you have burnt my canvases. That's what you did with MY words, you burnt them. To whoever 'YOU' are, I will never forgive you for that.

I'm sorry you had that experience Lynn. I hope your life is good now and you continue to write.

The truth about WOL has always been obvious. The people who run WOL don't know anything about writing, nor do they possess a deeper knowledge of the art form. WOL has always possessed a poor reputation. Although the Gig Guides are good.

One understands all the work which has gone into the site over the years. One shouldn't forget that. But...

England has never been empathetic to the arts. It's an illusion.

As a writer or artist one is essentially alone. Value that aloneness. Distill it into work.

As a random contributor like myself one shouldn't allow palace guards who have no literary intellect to get in the way of one's own writing.

I haven't read WAR CRIMINAL. It was deleted before I had chance to read it.

There have been very interesting contributors on this site. They come and go (talking of Michelangelo). I wish them all well with their work.

Look, let's be honest, thousands of us are grateful for the opportunities this site has given us to express ourselves...including those now whingeing about it.

Come on, let's hear it for the site!!!

Your attempt to invalidate legitimate concerns with the use of words like "whingeing" seems ill-considered, Brian. It's an old--and particularly conspicuous--tactic used to silence people.

Really, you aren't doing anything to help your position.

I continue to scribble Alan, life is now peaceful and I will do my best to ensure it stays that way for as long as possible. It's a shame you didnt get to read War Criminal as IMO it was brilliant. The ability to be able to enter someone else's head, look through their eyes and convey into words is a gift.

First of all- thank you for the overriding sense of Alan Pascoe here. David's poem WAR CRIMINAL can be read on his WORDPRESS page along with other poem of his. It didn't attract any controversy there.

I took the trouble to start this post to express my feelings in regard to the monitoring of poetry blogs and comments. I thought I made a good case for an inclusive approach to the freedoms implied. Obviously in view of the vehemence of all the responses both for and against the argument and the pruning of some of those for the protection of the moderators and their stance the post has become a flashpoint. I'd like come back in to say that as I see it, there will always be an impasse where borders of acceptability have been breached - however we regard those actions. I have already made it quite clear what my own position is on that process. Nothing will change.

I know it's of no consequence, but to educate about our language I would have thought was a worthwhile exercise. The fear of offence caused by words regarded as racist and derogatory is alive and well. There is apparently no defence in explaining there context. As an academic point the word that started all this is a shortening of the word raccoon and is described in the Oxford English Dictionary of 1934 as American slang: " a sly fellow, one whose case is hopeless." Enough said. If we fear cancer, the current thinking is to have it explained to us and try to understand and come to terms with it. Not so with some words apparently.

Due to personal repercussions of my involvement I have been found wanting, and is a cross I have to bear. I as acting in the interest of a wider point of view, and such may be the consequence. I make no apologies. It seems there is evidence that freedom of expression versus suppression is a thorny issue and or not to be resolved here. What we do know is that all work is read through and decisions made in order to protect the aims of the site.

One poem I read recently by an excellent poet here included the words "fucking wanker." That doesn't bother me personally, nor the moderators.

I'll get my coat.

I feel I need to address an earlier comment by Mr. Sherwood, one in which he states:

"Devon if you want to be a champion for someone who has been banned get you facts right otherwise it makes you look badly advised."

He was responding to my comment:

"The original post was then deleted, quickly by the moderators. Wolfgar then re-posted the poem, and the qualifying statements in the comment section of the deleted post. Which, as a result, he was banned, excommunicated, exterminated, from WoL."

Though it has taken several days to find, I would like to share a few words from the moderators to Wolfgar on his suspension and subsequent expulsion:

"You recently reposted
content in a comment that a
moderator had asked you to
remove from a blog
post. This is against our
code of conduct."

And by the way, as of this date, Wolfgar has not received any response to his queries regarding retrieval of his "copyrighted" material.

So, Graham, you were either out of the loop and left hung out to dry, or you simply wish to make me look a fool. It matters little, either way. But I think it is important to note for those following this discussion that over the course of this "debacle", as Graham puts it, a particular stratagem, perhaps dictated from the Star Chamber at WoL, perhaps not, has been revealed.

For all of you currently sharing your work on this site, I hope you continue enjoying each other's work. It was fun while it lasted, but I must bid you all a fond farewell.

No need to respond to this, Mr. Sherwood, as you will not hear from me again.

D

I think this is about done really, well on this medium at least.

Amusing to see those with little to contribute crawl out from under their rock to poke the embers with a very long stick, one affording them perceived protection from a side swipe.

All I would say is that each time they crawl out from under that rock a little more light is shed upon what writhes beneath, not only them but some of those who share their dark corners. There are some nasty little secrets hidden in there that might not exist so comfortably once light is cast over them. Maybe that is something to consider when spreading unfounded accusations about people on a public forum to which they have no access.

None of the serious contributors here are whinging for themselves, the complaint is in regard to a much greater principle, I feel sorry for those who fail to recognise that fact for it is on their behalf we speak. Whether they appreciate, understand or are receptive to that fact is of no real importance. Until the day the scales fall from their eyes, on that day they too might find themselves the target of the obliterators, then they may fully come to understand what is being discussed here.