I think we need to have some idea of what can legitimately be called offensive or extreme, though. Some will be offended by negative comments on a composer/artist/work they greatly admire, but is that to be excluded as a result? If, say, we were discussing Cornelius Cardew, and there was reference, perhaps sympathetic, to his Maoist views that occasioned a drastic shift in his mode of composition, some might be offended by that - should that be allowed or not? The same surely goes for some of the parallels Maxwell Davies draws in his speech. Also, there is, in my view, value in sometimes intense debates between those of opposing points of view. I believe that these should be allowed so long as they do not descend into personal attacks.

Where do I start....

When I created this forum all those weeks ago, I envisaged it to be a haven away from the crazy moderation, a place where Radio 3/Classical music fans could post without fear of being unnecessarily moderated.  In my opinion, this is the case still today.

There were only a few rules (3 to start, a 4th added later) which is probably a little few, but the real issue isn't about the rules, it is about whether the moderation team are unnecessarily moderating posts. 

Sure, we could add as many rules as we like, we could create a whole set of rules and regulations that would take a while to understand, a while to set out, a while for users to get used to and an even longer while for moderators to moderate.  But one thing that has to be remembered is this is a hobby, for both posters and moderators.  John has had a hard time with this moderation debacle, and I think now it might be an idea to introduce a new concept. 

I hear the calls for a better understanding of how posts are moderated/removed, and I can truly understand that when posting on a forum you need to know exactly WHY a post is being removed, or why a poster is being banned.  The problem is that as I've said previously, this is a hobby for BOTH moderators and posters, so any long processes would just make this forum un-runnable in the long term.  The only way to keep the forum running in an acceptable manner is to have a very small set of criteria such as 'Is this likely to offend' or 'Is this poster being offensive.' 

At the end of the day, to keep this a happy place, a moderator can and will delete posts that don't break our set of 4 rules, when asked, an explanation will be given and as the Ian P case has shown, we do listen and decisions are allowed to change.

The real issue isn't about creating more rules, it's about letting the moderators moderate how they see fit, unless you genuinely have an issue with certain moderations.

That is where I reckon some guidelines need to be set down as to what can legitimately be called offensive. It is possible that a large number of people could be offended simply by a dissenting opinion on some matter - but does that count as legitimate offence (just asking a serious question here)?

That does seem a fair complaint if the subject-matter is off-topic, but can it not then simply be moved to another thread? I would think in most of the earlier times this has been perceived to be the case, there was more than one poster involved in allegedly off-topic exchanges.


That seems very fair, I just wonder if some space can be made for the possibility of a thread moving in the direction of something linked but tangential to the original topic (for example, talk of Chopin bequeathing talk of Scriabin and the areas of overlap between the two, but then focusing more on the latter)? Just so that if the subject shifts to the latter, it can be used to start a different thread? On other forums I have posted, I have often changed topic titles when clearly the subject matter has shifted - yet sometimes that subject matter might not have emerged were it not for the original topic.

Fair enough - I do need to ask in this context whether 'Orientalism and Music' is deemed to be an unnecessary and too off-topic subject for this board, though, bearing in mind not only the fact that quite a number of posters contributed to it, but that at least two other than myself have expressed a desire for it to continue?

That would be fine, but I think some advance guidelines are needed in terms of what is deemed unnecessary/off-topic, at least in general terms? I suppose I still wonder why members can't simply skip threads that engage with music in a way other than that which they prefer or are accustomed to?


Not really; also few at the political forums I know would really have the technical vocabulary to discuss just what constitutes musical orientalism (augmented intervals, use of drones and static harmonies, etc.) let alone how these might actually relate to the actual music of the region in question. It is a musical issue through and through, and one which I do believe is quite fundamental to a large amount of 19th- and 20th-century music, especially from France or Russia.

What I would also ask is whether we should have at least some formal principles regarding those who disrupt threads simply by complaining about the very subject matter, or launching into ad hominem attacks on posters. There are at least two posters here who have done the latter with respect to me; personally, I prefer not to complain about other posters, but rather defend my case in the forum. However, if I had known things would get to this stage, I think I might have complained about both individuals. Deliberately disrupting a thread in this manner, rather than contributing anything relevant to the thread title, surely itself breaches all principles of 'topic respect'?

(I'm not trying to be argumentative, just wanting these things to be clarified in this thread)

Well, the thread in its late stages got a bit bogged down with endless exchanges between Alistair and I, in my case much of the time responding to charges about the relevance of the subject itself. I don't see how something can become 'a Pace soapbox' if the posts are all in response to those of others, unless expressing one's views (and entering into a debate with others) makes something into a soapbox. But before this, there were very interesting posts from autoharp, increpatio, roslynmuse, Richard Barrett, Tim R-J, George Garnett, time-is-now, and even single posts from Reiner and oliver sudden. That surely suggests it was of interest to quite a few prominent posters, and maybe others wanted to read it though not contribute to it? The attacks by the latter figure seemed one factor in driving the thread downhill, I'm sorry I have to say. But other than those, and the bogged-down stuff between Alistair and I, I'd like to think it was a stimulating and productive thread, and could be extended further (at the moment I'm not going to post more there until we've come to some conclusion on it here), especially with respect to orientalist music in the 20th century, only touched upon so far.

But these issues are often complex, which is what leads to debate going on for some time - and if I was not allowing for others' opinions, why was I engaging in debate with practically all of them? If a demand is that one's own opinions must be made to conform to some sort of majority view, I think that will be hugely problematic. I'm prepared to listen to the argument that says how an approach which entails engaging with all others views, whilst still bringing one's own individual perspective to bear, may constitute a soapbox, but that argument surely has to be justified. It does sound to me rather more like a demand that minority opinions don't raise their head too often, which seems akin to an imposition of group-think, but I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise. I do believe I have as much right to express my opinions on here as anyone else does (and most do), whether or not they in general concur with those of the majority.

On the other hand, if you think this board is not a place for extended serious discussion of complex musical issues, or where minority views are allowed, then fair enough, as long as that principle is extended to all.