This is meant to be a thread where we can debate such things, isn't it? I'm just asking some questions, not arguing for arguing's sake. I'm sure there are many people who can 'understand' what I post, save the few occasions where there is a bit of technical jargon; it's not like those quickly-done posts are like highly-arcane academic papers, surely?


Tommo's guidelines do indeed look good, I was just asking on what basis boundaries are established as concerns what can legitimately be considered to be 'offensive'? And I really don't understand the meaning of the above statement - are you saying I will only accept something if I accept it? I just want to know more clearly what this thing would be, and that it will apply to all posters - is that not a reasonable thing to ask?

(just seen Michael's post about the Argument area - seems an ideal solution, hope other posters agree)

Evan,

Many thanks for that, we need to hear more voices on this subject. If 'gabb' means 'gabble' then I can assure you that Michael and I intend that this forum not become an 'Internet gabbing spot', and that's probably what this thread is all about.

I suggest we try out Michael's Argument Area, and I just hope I rarely ever have to visit it  


John W

Thank you.  Happy for them to be called Tommo's guidelines just for the purposes of this discussion, but I wouldn't want that to imply ownership or that I was dictating to the board how it should run. Remember, I was trying to uncover the implicit principles this forum runs to.  If we accept these as underlying forum principles, we should all own them.

Actually, I think there may be a need for some examples (see below).  We should remember these are only examples, and not a definitive way of addressing issues.  Humans can be incredibly lazy, and see an example as the one and only accepable method, when other more imagnative solutions could fit the principles just as well.


I personally don't like the idea of one rule for one person and another rule for others, or the concept of different people on the forum having different rights (such as judging whether a rule is right or not).  The one area where I may just about stretch it is with moderation - a moderator need to make a final decision sometimes, based on his/her opinion but having taken into account others views.

I should at this point suggest how the rights and responsibilities may help us determine some guidelines for how to address problems, as well as for deciding what is acceptable or not.

Let's take the example of a thread going 'off topic'.  First there is the issue of who decides that it is 'off topic'.  I like to believe that I have the sort of brain that sees links and relationships between topics that other people would view as comletely separate.  Maybe I would view something as 'on topic' when another would get annoyed that we were going off at a tangent.  The guideline Responsibility 2 says that we should respect each other's right to express an opinion, and should look for the value in those opinions. So it should not be a blanket case of a moderator deciding that something is off topic - he/she needs to do so with consultation.  Michael / John - you are both very good in this respect.  And then there is the point about what to do if it is decided that posts are off topic - delete them or move them?  Deleting goes against the point that people have the right to exress an opinion, so perhaps moving is better.  Again, this is pretty much how our moderators operate.

Let's now take the example of someone complaining that a post contains a link to an extremist site, even though that ink was posted to back up a musical argument.  They may be worried that the R3 forum will get blacklisted somewhere, or that the inclusion of the link will attract people to the board for the 'wrong' reasons (not connected to the purpose of the board).  It may be that these beliefs are completely unfounded, but there is obviously a situation where the original poster wants to express his/her opinion and the complainant is concerned that by doing so safety is compromised.  One way of resolving this would be to change the way in whch the original poster's opinion is expressed.  Rather than include a link, cite references to how to find the link (e.g. search for x and y), and mention that once found it may include extremist views.  In this way the opinion of the original poster could be expressed wthout upsetting the second person.  Rather than remove a post, the moderator could amend it / or ask for it to be amended.

There is still the issue of self-censorship - a new forum member has no idea of what will offend other forum members as he hasn't met them yet, so I do feel some guidelines are required there.  Other forums must have had this problem - is there anything we can learn from them?

Tommo

Please let's not have any more rules other than those that existed right at the beginning - at least not yet. Occasionally the government passes "knee-jerk reaction" laws, such as those concerning ownership of guns and dangerous dogs and they are always badly implemented laws. I also like the (true) story about the national park that solved its litter problem by... getting rid of the litter bins. I think that a long list of rules encourages a "rules are made to be broken" mentality.

What happened over the last few days has made many of us think, so let's see how we all respond to that first. It could be that a new member will come along and abuse this MB but let's not talk about hypothetical situations. Amongst others, Tommo has talked a lot of sense here and I appreciate the time and trouble he's taken but let's not enshrine his guidelines just yet is all I'm saying. Let's see how we can all respond to what happened first.

I have written to Ian privately so he knows what I think. I personally have not been offended by anything that anyone has written here but I wouldn't argue with someone who has been. My special plea is for messages not to be too long. I know that some of the matters discussed here are complex but I think the challenge is to talk about them in a succinct and lucid way.

So I shall take my own advice and shut up now - for the time being  - to let others get a word in.

Tommo,

Michael has updated the rules, nothing drastic, and nothing more than was being suggested last night. I don't see that they affect anyone's 'rights', though I accept that they strengthen the moderator's rights 

Your rights and responsibilities are still here for folks to consider, Tommo. Like you, Michael and I don't think we need do anything more at this time. If a 'situation' arises the course of action is clear.


Cheers,

John W

1/4 tone,

As moderator I have been asked on more than one occasion by posters to split a thread that has drifted off-topic. This is a reasonable request in the case of two good 'music' topics, and will aid the development of the original topic and the 'new' one.

Very little has ever been censored on this forum. Remnants of well-off-topic split topics can still be foundon the boards. In most cases a notification message is posted by the system. Have to admit that that has not always worked, like yesterday when I split the Musical Connections; it's a tricky procedure which I'm still learning 


I've been guilty of that when aroused, but with so much going on here it's easy now for me to avoid such discussions


I agree. Yesteday there were some heated remarks, but the suggestion of private messages may have calmed things before others became offended.


I do sympathise with posters aggrieved that a thread has been taken over by politics, and that the political issue won't go away. I'm dealing with each situation as it arises as 'rules' are something we are trying to avoid.


John W