So last night (my time) there is a thread started here which includes some allegations that I regard to be fairly serious: a model hasn't been paid for a shoot that a guy with a fairly prominent website here is trying to hawk. The amount involved isn't huge; who's responsible and who's to blame is sketchy, but there is clearly a principle at stake here. The thread prompts a bit of back and forth and - for what it's worth - I lob in a comment. Then this morning I wake up - AND THE THREAD HAS COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED!!

So I am wondering: are there people here with the power and/or influence to remove things that are uncomfortable to them or their business, even if they are (IMHO) matters of relevance to the entire community? Is quashing legitimate debate - debate that is in the interest of this community - now policy here?

I should point out I am not seeking to make trouble for the people who were drawn into the dialogue - at least one of whom has been a member of this community for a long time. However I do think that matters of legitimate interest to members here - matters which perhaps give some insight into the business practises of certain people - should not be censored. Not least because they may help some people here in framing their decisions about who they buy products from. Not paying a model for their time, freely admitting it, and then asking people here to buy the download (!) is a serious matter in my book.

It's not the first time I've simply seen threads 'vanish' overnight - but I still find it, well, a little unnerving nonetheless. Messmaster this is 2011, not 1984.

With concern,

Maddy xxx

Oh, and I'll check back in an hour or so, and if THIS thread has disappeared I'll know something's up...!!

Some animals are more equal than others, my dear...

well said Maddy

oh, and

To answer your question Maddy the thread was removed by me at the request of one of those involved.
Now I do not remove threads just on the whim of any individual member of this site without first looking into the matter myself. Having read the article and taken into concideration the user request I decided it was in the best interest of UMD to remove the thread.

I'm glad someone raised this issue ... and I'm glad it was Maddy, because nobody here is going to try to shut her up!

Yamtree, I'll agree that there may be times when inappropriate threads need to be removed by the mods (*cough* anything by Trevor *cough") ... but I'd encourage that some kind of placeholder be left there to document the action, with as much explanation that can be given without duplicating the offending content.

Because otherwise, as Maddy says, it can create a sort of unsettling vibe in a community that has, on the whole, remained remarkably un-douchey in its administration, in spite of some severe challenges from a variety of dimwits and assholes.

Yamtree thank you for your explanation. I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question.

Without belaboring the point, the issue remains however: how can it possibly be in the interests of this community as a whole to remove a thread which lays bear the business practises of certain individuals here? Your decision was taken with their interests in mind (ie to spare their blushes) but had nothing to do with - and I would argue actually conflicted with - the interests of the community as a whole.

Let's be clear what we are talking about here: this was a producer appealing for people to buy his product out of a sense of pity because the model who appeared in it had not been paid!! As a marketing strategy that is, of course, almost laughable, but that doesn't excuse the fact that there is a serious issue here. Regardless of who owed her the money (and I was really none the wiser having read the entire thread!!) nobody disputed that SOMEBODY did. To just wash that under the carpet by removing the link is, in my humble opinion, a mistake.

I would hasten to add that I am not criticising your actions directly. The mods do a great job on here by and large, and I am sure it is often a thankless task. That said, I think there needs to be a policy on this - and hopefully one that is a little more sophisticated than simply helping out guys (or gals!) who make fools of themselves.

Personally, I'd love to see the thread resuscitated, although it has probably long since disappeared into the ether - to the relief, no doubt, of some of those mentioned in it.

Thank you for letting me have my say! I'm off to cover myself in chocolate pudding...

Yours with kind regards,

Maddy xxx

I completely agree Bob that a placeholder would be of help however it would only be able to state that it had been removed and by who but not, I'm afraid, why in all instances.
Please be aware Bob that Admins are party to information that is not public domain within UMD and sometime what can seem like a random thing is in fact related to something much more. However please realise that the decision to not make certain facts public is often done to protect the innocent not to cover up for the guilty. As I am sure you are aware the internet and UMD to a degree have little to no real governance and it is down to admins like myself and other to act in what we consider to be a responsible and decent fashion with absolutely no guidelines at all. In addition to this if we have suspicions about anything or anyone on UMD then yes we can remove posts or even themselves with immediate action but what we do not do is publish information based on suspicions without hard facts to back them up. Making accusations about anyone or anything here without good evidence to back them up can not only lead to innocent individuals being made into a pariah by the community but can also ultimately lead to the guilty going free.

I hope this makes it a little clearer for you.

Actually, in terms of that particular thread, I can see how that kind of dirty laundry would be a headache for the mods, and could possibly tar an innocent party, without any of the parties providing evidence to back up their claims. And that the UMD might not be the best place to air that evidence. When Sploogington McSploogeysplooge was exposed publicly as a clandestine splooger, I believe that was preceded by some discussion with the mods.

However, Yamtree, I would argue that the removal of a thread without explanation is in itself a tacit passing of judgment on its merits. Isn't it better to make a public comment than to have an information vacuum where readers' thoughts turn quickly toward the Orwellian?

"Dirty laundry..."

The problem is that if someone posts "X is a bad payer" that's libellous. And the site could be sued for allowing someone to post that. So any allegations like that have to be deleted sharp...

Maddy for president

This is the internet, that kinda stuff happens. However, it's only libel if it isn't true. Just keep that in mind. People NEED to be allowed to question potential malicious practices of producers or wanna-be producers. If you produce something, then you should have no problem answering allegations about it and clearing the matter up. Let a mod "sum up" the findings and replace a thread with a summarized version of the outcome, but don't just sweep things under the rug b/c it makes someone who did something wrong feel bad.

I refudiate your coinage of the new word "un-douchey".

What's that fencing term?

Oh, yeah: douche' !

I can't imagine what words can be typed to warrant deletion without explaination other than maybe an incitement to commit a crime. Short of a post being a genuine threat to someone's life or property or privacy, censoring it is not appropriate IMO. If it is libel, the post should be left up and the author exposed. Either way, good is seldom done in the dark of night and keeping people ignorant is not in their own interest.

Isn't noise a moderator? I've always thought that was ethically questionable - some other stuff has disappeared in the past, and yet when there was a thread making allegations against another producer recently, well, it's still here for everyone to read.

I thought the post which was deleted was an ill conceived attempt to drum up sales which was easy to see through and shouldn't have left on the site. There has only been a partial explanation as to why though, and I suspect that this will be all we'll get.

I do think that there's something decidedly fishy about a couple of the posters on the thread though. And, for the benefit of any passing libel lawyer, that's my opinion, not alleged fact...

I think Noise gave up his mod status awhile ago.

I responded to a thread recently in which I criticised someone for making a rather obscene comment about someone who was kind enough to post some pics, only to find my comment as well as theirs was deleted shortly after!
I guess in that situation if you're going to remove the original then best to remove the ones that refer to it, but it's all in a similar vein.

I saw the thread before it disappeared, and I personally felt it just didn't belong in here. It was totally a webmaster issue that should have been handled off line.

As for removing posts, it happens all the time on forums.

Yes, I remember just not too long ago, I believe, someone put up a thread talking about a friend/model they know who was in some sort of accident. Folks gave their well wishes in the thread. When I came back the next morning, the thread was gone.

I did wonder what happened on that thread to cause its deletion.

As it happens I totally agree with transparency and am against covering things up or sweeping them under the carpet however please bear in mind that not everything that is removed is removed because it may be libellous or controversial as I pointed out before it is often removed to protect the innocent and there are many many reasons for this.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and tell you why I removed it.
I removed it because I was concerned about it being another dodgy marketing attempt by wamwarehouse as this is now the third time in as many months that he has tried to entice people into buying his clips by using someone else personal tragedy, illness or problems by suggesting he will donate a (small) percentage of his sales to them if you buy his work.
The innocent people that I was trying to protect in this instance was any user of UMD who may be persuaded to buy his work as a result of these posts out of the goodness of their hearts. The previous one of which was also removed but not by me in this instance.
Hopefully this will explain why it was not left up for discussion and why it would be immediately removed as I am sure you would expect any allegedly false advertising claim to be removed while it was being investigated.

My first and foremost concern whilst moderating this site is honesty. I have been a fan of UMD from the start and have a great love and respect for it as a community and I would also like to point out so do the other mods and so does Messmaster who I am pleased to say has always supported us in this endeavour to make UMD a fun and safe place where WAM fans can enjoy this fetish we all share. Nobody is perfect, things get missed, sometimes it seems an age to get something fixed but please bear in mind we are all volunteers here with the exception of MM and rely on you as a community to help and assist us as much as possible.

Now a little personal note from me:
I absolutely hate all the arguing, bitching, back biting, producers slagging off producers, posers, trolls, flaming and the like. Please please please can we get back to having lots of messy fun, enjoying ourselves and priding ourselves on being the warm, open and friendly community that I grew to love over 15 years ago. I invite any and all of you to join us in the chat room sometime where you can often find any of the mods including MM and see that whilst we don't always talk WAM we always have fun because you are all welcome.

Cheers Jonn