.) This newsgroup has been falsely accused of
censorship, yet there has been no censorship here.
.) The accusers are all developer advocates, yet in
Harmony the developer does all of the censorship.
.) What the advocates claim as censorship is simply
fair and impartial group moderation policy.
.) Almost anything (not spam or hate speech) that
does not at first appear in this forum can be
resubmitted in another context and appear.
.) 3 independent backup moderators guarantee fairness.
We have a few conflicted parties who often shout "CENSORSHIP" whenever the
nonsense they post does not appear exactly when and where they think it
should. The two prominent examples of this are long-standing developer
advocates who I refer to as "Agents of Starwood" (see
). They are David Leeman and Jim Warren. Leeman
and Warren have been doing their shtick in this forum for years.
Whenever these guys cry "CENSORSHIP" they always fail to mention that we
have 3 independent backup moderators for this newsgroup, including two
attorneys and one former newspaper editor. To my understanding, Leeman and /
or Warren have complained to these moderators repeatedly. Yet the moderators
have not yet agreed with their baseless complaints. If any moderator does
agree with a complaint, Leeman's, Warren's or anyone else's, that moderator
is free to release the post. Thus no censorship.
If a moderator chooses not to release a post, it is for good reason. More
often than not such unreleased posts are spam. On rare occasions a post will
not be released because it does not adhere to the rather loose editorial
guidelines enforced in this newsgroup (guideline far more lax than any
The typical example of a post that does not appear is one that is obviously
unrelated to the topic of discussion. At such times the writer is always
free to start a new thread with their off-topic post. Such "reposts" have
always gone through except when the poster is attacking someone or using an
inappropriate subject title. The bottom line: all it takes is one moderator
to agree that the author's post should be released and it is released.
That's how it works in a fair and open forum like this, one that allows all
sides of every debate to have an equal voice. Now consider how it works on
the developer's websites.
Starwood / Harmony Development Company maintains several websites. Their
primary website ( http://HarmonyFL.com
), which seems to change with the
seasons, only includes so-called "testimonials" from residents. Yet these
testimonials are questionable at best since the "testimony" is from people
who can't be identified or questioned. There is no way for residents to
voice their concerns on the developer's primary website.
The one developer website which does allow for input from residents (
) has a moderation policy that, unlike this
forum, allows for the developer to edit posts before they are released (see
"Harmony Festivals", http://tinyurl.com/d86wbgh
). On top of that, anything
posted by residents can't be readily viewed by anyone else since casual
readers have no way to know the trick of clicking blog headers to see what
Thus the only so-called "censorship" in Harmony is perpetrated by the
developer, not by the moderators of this newsgroup.
Here's another form of censorship. It is exercised by the developer's
advocates (again see "Agents of Starwood" http://tinyurl.com/79ff2a8
Multiple times in the past, Leeman or Warren have responded to something
that I have written in this forum by posting their responses in another
forum, one that is private, closed and inaccessible to the public at large.
Even read-only access requires special permission from folks closely aligned
with the developer. I am referring to the Harmony group on Yahoo. These
developer agents copy my posts from here to there along with their
responses, responses that I can't subsequently refute in the closed Yahoo
Here's a typical example. Jim Warren acknowledged this in a recent post (see
"Harmony with Nature?", http://tinyurl.com/arqbec3
Warren apparently copied my post from here to the Yahoo group along with his
response. That begs the question. Did Warren then also copy my subsequent
response to the same closed Yahoo group so that all of his Yahoo readers
could see it? I am guessing that he didn't (as of this writing). Why?
Because, IMHO, he and his developer friends are hypocritically inclined to
practice the kind of censorship that he accuses of others.