Curiouser and curiouser

The ProZ censors are at it again, and to be quite honest, I can't see what for. Today I received the following message for a post made some time ago, which was purged today:

Dear Kevin Lossner,

This message is to inform you that your post "Really?" has been removed from public view because it was not in line with site rule http://www.proz.com/siterules/general/2#2

Site users are expected to treat each other with courtesy, whether posting publicly or making direct contact.

Thank you in advance for your understanding and future cooperation.

Regards,
Jared ProZ.com moderator.


Since there was no link given I had no idea what the allegedly objectionable content was, so I filed a support request to ask. Jared kindly responded and copied the text out along with the following message:

Text of removed post

Dear Kevin,

I'll copy the text of the post below. Note that, in the case of removed posts, no links are sent since the posts are no longer visible.

Really?

Samuel Murray wrote:
Exactly. That is why the system isn't a quoting system -- it's a bidding system. But someone at ProZ.com thought that "bid" had a bad ring to it, so they called it a quoting system.

Is this firm knowledge or speculation? Doesn't sound bad to me either way. In an RFP, which in a sense is what many of the job posts could be considered, the terms "proposal", "bid" and "quote/"quotation" are really equivalent, and I think my friends on the big island off the coast of France are fond of "tender" as well. (That might come from all the tenderizing that is said to have gone on in the public schools in days presumably past.)

As you know, some people claim that these job posts are like slavery and ought to be banned from ProZ. I vehemently disagree. I think we should encourage slavery in the profession and therefore I herewith propose to Henry and the staff of ProZ that programming resources be dedicated to creating slave auctions. We won't need dental X-rays and beefcake photos of those up for sale - a summary of their qualifications and a commitment for a unit of capacity within a specific timeframe is all that would be needed. (Sorry, this is only part-time slavery... those who want it full time will have to look for a day job.) Outsourcers could then bid - quite publicly - for the advertised capacity for a specific translator. Those on the block could even specify the starting bid level to make it "fair" :-) Whatchy'all think?

Regards,

Jared
Member services and support

The "rule" allegedly violated reads as follows:

Mutual respect, professionalism and fair play are expected. Site users are expected to treat each other with courtesy, whether posting publicly or making direct contact, and are advised to act under the assumption of good faith. Harassment of, or attacks on, individuals or groups, of any form, as well as discouragement of another's use of the site, will not be tolerated. No action aimed at gaining unfair advantage in KudoZ, the directory or elsewhere, whether taken alone or as a group, will be tolerated.

Perhaps I'm merely getting old and senile, but I fail to see the connection here. But as Barney Frank would say, trying to have a conversation with some people is like trying to talk to a dining room table. Jared is a nice fellow, but I think he's off in the Twilight Zone here with his RuleZ.

I was actually serious with the slave auction proposal in any case. I think it would be fun, and it would be revealing in a lot of ways. I remember years ago too that this used to be a popular fund-raising method for churches and youth clubs in the California town where I grew up. The other good thing about this proposal is that the bidding structure would move prices up and reveal to some of the bottom feeders what others are willing to pay. Instead we have the usual system where hungry translators in some language pairs compete to see who can work for the fewest calories per day. Better to be open about that slavery thing, because real slave labor has more value than what many ProZ outsourcers are willing to pay.