For what it's worth, I thought the subject matter entirely appropriate for discussion on a board such as this. I have to admit to being rather discouraged from posting in its latter stages, simply because I found Ian and Alistair's exchanges rather circular and repetitious, but even so, it was possible to bypass these "roadworks" and post a message with the intention of kickstarting the topic debate again, as I did, with only partial success, I'm afraid.

So, I guess what I am saying is that, rather than rules, a little common sense by forum users in providing a "diversion" to get a thread back on course seems the best policy. But that is me - I am fundamentally against censorship. Self-censorship (when necessary) is the ideal, along with all the sensible ideas Tommo posted earlier. It does rather assume that we all share the same aims and ideals though!

An unfortunate thing is that self censorship often fails, if someone's opinions are offensive to 90% of the people but not to themself, they would argue they were not offensive.

Self-censorship often fails, that is true Michael, and I think it also applies to a poster who has gone on too long and has taken threads into soapbox level excluding just about everyone else.

Ian, this is why we have moderators, and why the moderators here, I'd like to think, are very neutral and level-headed  

Ian, if you were admin/moderator here, I wonder how many threads could avoid political input from you, and how many members would remain  


John W

Then why were others continuing to post in those threads (the bogged-down stuff between Alistair and I being one exception, where most other posters bowed out)?


Well, I would argue that my input is not necessarily that much more 'political' than that of most others, just from a different political perspective, and somewhat more explicit. Obviously there are some subjects where this is more implicit than explicit. But, when talking about musical works, how we hear them, what sorts of meanings they communicate to us, are we not inevitably considering a social dimension to the work?

In the totally hypothetical situation where I was admin/moderator (not for a moment advocating that!) I would perhaps try to lay down some guidelines regarding frequency and length of postings if necessary, intervene where threads get stuck in an argument between just two or a very small number of people, and ask them to take those into private, intervene when posters engage in personal attacks on each other, and try to get people to move things to different threads if they became clearly off-topic. But not disallow even the posts with views I find highly objectionable (for example those which indulge in stentorian denunciations of large numbers of people for not liking classical music or high culture in general), just ask that these are kept to the relevant threads.

I've thought about this a bit tonight.
It seems to me that Ian's desire to allow 'heated', perhaps contentious debate is entirely warranted in principle - after all, none of us I assume would wish to stifle free speech. One of the great things about this forum is its openness. I remember posting on TOP towards the end of its heyday that, surely, what you do to encourage really good debate is to allow waffle and frivolity, precisely because they encourage and enable confidence and the sort of sense of 'safety' that Tommo was talking about earlier in posting about more elevated topics. (That the Beeb have disallowed this to continue is, of course, an act of cretinous stupidity - or staggering cynicism, take your pick - and we now witness the results.)
But I wonder if we're making enough of this forum's facilities here. I've noticed that when a thread becomes 'heated', contentious, argumentative etc., many posters fall by the wayside and it's left to two or three to slog it out. If we were to be responsibly self-moderating, a point would come when a thread turns from being a general discussion into an argument, to all intents and purposes. At that point it could be removed, at the suggestion of one or more of the contributing parties, or indeed someone intimidated by the 'heat', to the realm of the Private Meassge.
Now, the beauty of PM-ing is that you can use it like email. There's an 'outbox' where you can store your own outgoing messages, forward them therefore to others who may retrospectively want to rejoin debate (and let you know as much via PM), and generally develop the thread away from the main board.
I do think that it's a problem if people are put off responding to something by the intensity of argument from others. And I don't think it's a very valid argument to suggest that people can always 'not read' particular threads, or not bother responding. Surely the idea is that we try to be inclusive, involve our fellow members, entice those who don't share our particular enthusiasms or knowledge to share in them
And so on. Enough for now.

Of course, I'm only suggesting that we have some rough guidelines to provide a basic framework in terms of what types of posting are or aren't acceptable.


I don't know for sure: I know there are some who take exception to some of my views on musical and other matters, and vice versa, but isn't that what debate is for?


Not if it is made clear what things are legitimate matters for complaint, as I said before.


No, not if they don't confront me (which has happened a-plenty). I may express different opinions to theirs, yes.


No, and please, I'm not looking for an argument here by any means. I don't really want to go over the events of earlier this week any more if possible, only to say that I thought the demands being made of me were unreasonable and not being demanded of other posters as well.

One thing I did wonder was whether the simple fact of there being the 'Recent Posts' thing to click on (which there isn't at either TOP or For3) means that more people will end up reading bits from threads that they do not wish to? On another board, I'm sure if people didn't like the Orientalism thread, say, they just wouldn't bother to click on it, and there wouldn't be a problem.

To martle's point (also one of Michael's points about what type of board this is) - I wonder if some of the issues that you identify arise from the fact that various types of constituencies inhabit this board? There are a significant number of highly knowledgeable people, many of them from the music world itself, and others who are not professional musicians but unfailingly present deeply original and thoughtful perspectives (an example would be George Garnett). And others who prefer just to use this board for more casual chat. As I said in my statement that Tommo forwarded, one of the things I think is good about this board is that it allows both for serious and more frivolous discussion. But inevitably some of the former will exclude some people drawn to the latter, especially if the debate gets deeper, more technical, or whatever. The rather intricate debate on the 21st century thread between oliver, Aaron, Evan, quartertone and myself to do with the performance of complex rhythms would be an example. If the board is to be more informal, not so intense, then I do think we need to debate and agree on this (if more intricate and serious subjects are to be left to another forum, such as For3, fine, but don't we need to make this clear?). I just wonder if it's possible to make everything 'inclusive' without precluding certain modes of debate, here or anywhere else (including on Radio 3, actually)? Not claiming to have a clear answer on this subject, just asking, wondering anyone's thoughts.

Ian,

I believe Michael and I are in good agreement about what level of moderation we want to be involved in, and what level of rules we want here. None.

I do not read all messages posted on this forum, I have not needed to, so it came as a shock when certain issues which I had missed were brought to my attention. It's even more of a shock that someone as intelligent as you is still here after 11.00pm arguing with moderators about postings that few understand and which you think most people should just ignore.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that Tommo's guidelines look rather good on it's own and that any other rules will only be acceptable if Ian Pace accepts them. I suggest then that we need no other rules, and that you accept that any other 'situation' arising will be dealt with by the moderators through the complaints procedure, the issue will be made public in the Boards Usage section, and a decision will be made.


John W