|
Bryn
|
 |
« Reply #180 on: 18:50:57, 15-09-2008 » |
|
Feel free to have a hearty debate as to whether I should continue moderating.
I don't think that's necessary or productive. You have my support. Seconded wholeheartedly I'm with bopa on this one. I find myself wondering whether Ian's professed enthusiasm for S & M does not extend to his debating methods. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
autoharp
|
|
« Reply #181 on: 18:58:20, 15-09-2008 » |
|
Thirded. Ollie has my support, too. This is almost certainly related to the fact that the wholly undialectical model of Bach thus presented, as a relatively passive product of the norms of his time, is in reality very close to your own highly conservative view. I had thought that this view of Bach had mostly died out after the 1950s, amongst those German musicologists who had moved from exhorting how Bach expressed the spirit of the German race in the 1930s and 40s, to propagating Bach's music as a representation of divine order in the 1950s. Here he's calling you a Nazi. The implication seems perfectly clear to me. Especially in the light of previous Baz-baiting on Ian's part. I'm not sure if continuing this debate benefits anybody other than Ian - the reason I suggested locking this thread earlier. But maybe I'm on my own on that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Milly Jones
|
|
« Reply #182 on: 19:06:13, 15-09-2008 » |
|
I think this thread has died a natural death anyway. Now all we seem to be discussing is Ian Pace.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We pass this way but once. This is not a rehearsal!
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #183 on: 19:08:20, 15-09-2008 » |
|
I'm not sure if continuing this debate benefits anybody other than Ian - the reason I suggested locking this thread earlier. But maybe I'm on my own on that. It's fruitful to the moderators and to me personally to know what the board thinks on this matter - especially if there's criticism of my actions in particular. That's why I welcome the posts of Turfan Fragment and time_is_now - I would like to get any grumblings out in the air and have the opportunity to explain myself. On the other hand it's important also for me to hear from people who think the moderators are doing the right thing, especially if they normally steer clear of this sort of discussion. (A reaction I can well understand!) I think this thread has died a natural death anyway. Now all we seem to be discussing is Ian Pace.
(I think a lot of threads have ended up doing that in the recent past, Milly...  ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #184 on: 19:15:47, 15-09-2008 » |
|
Briefly then. I'm not going to comment in detail or go over old ground (particularly now that Ian is no longer here to respond) but I think there has always been a clear distinction maintained between Ollie as Ollie and as a member of the Moderator team. That was the deal when all three Mods took the task on, that they could continue to do both but keep the roles distinct.
I very much regret that Ian has left but I have no complaint at all about Ollie's posts 'as Ollie' in this thread (which seem to me well within the scope of reasonable and robust debate which all of us should be able to welcome when we post something controversial). And I think that the Mods acted fairly and as was necessary in a difficult situation. All three have my full support.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
martle
|
|
« Reply #185 on: 19:32:13, 15-09-2008 » |
|
Firstly, I lost interest in this thread when it started becoming, er, rather predictable; but having read it again I can only echo George's posting above. It's of course insidious to continue with its essentials now that Ian can no longer defend himself, but whilst I would probably take issue with one or two minor charges against him, on the whole I am happy to abide by our Moderators' collective decision, and certainly understand the reasons for it.
The broader issue of moderation has been called into question here and elsewhere. In my view, it's an extremely healthy thing that we have three (elected) moderators. Triumverates are not always wonderful things, but I personally am confident in their abilities and think they do a grand (and often thankless) job.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Green. Always green.
|
|
|
|
Turfan Fragment
|
|
« Reply #186 on: 19:50:06, 15-09-2008 » |
|
Note that I am not speaking in Ian's defence here. I think he was once again way out of line. And it doesn't matter since he has left the boards. I am also not calling upon Ollie to step down. I am asking what makes a moderator a moderator, essentially disagreeing with George's last post.
If instead of post #121 Ian had given a more explicit response to Baz's demand for clarification, instead of someone else jumping in and presuming to speak for him, I wouldn't have to raise this issue.
I said I was prepared to be very very wrong about this, but for the record I do think the moderators as private persons do need to be more careful than most about the nature of their posts, because they have a moderator hat in their closet. They are authority figures. Their job is not only to moderate but also to emphasize moderation.
On the M&S board, the moderator has a separate account from which to moderate ('John F' moderates, but 'jack straw' posts non-moderator comments, tho they're the same person). Couldn't we implement something like that here? I would feel a lot better if that were the case. It would also mean not having to vote for moderators again. It would smooth things out. Is that a solution worth discussing, or am I the only one who is grumpy about it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #187 on: 19:56:47, 15-09-2008 » |
|
I think TF's comments might well be taken where necessary on to another thread, and I agree with autoharp (and others) that it seems pointless to protract this discussion here (and, indeed, very unfair on Mr Pace who can no longer contribute his views). I do not detect anything but overall support for our moderators who - judging by their overall lack of intervention in what is mostly a very happy MB - are serving us extremely well (and fully deserve our support and gratitude). So, as far as this actual thread is concerned I should recommend the following... Baz |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 20:02:09, 15-09-2008 by Baz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #188 on: 20:04:02, 15-09-2008 » |
|
On the M&S board, the moderator has a separate account from which to moderate ('John F' moderates, but 'jack straw' posts non-moderator comments, tho they're the same person). Couldn't we implement something like that here? I would feel a lot better if that were the case. It would also mean not having to vote for moderators again. It would smooth things out. Is that a solution worth discussing, or am I the only one who is grumpy about it?
I personally wouldn't see that as useful - I don't think Oliver Sudden disappearing into a phone booth and reappearing as Forster B. Reckendwith would fool anyone. I feel there's more accountability in the current situation. Inevitably moderators here are going to be drawn from the membership, and inevitably they'll have an interest in the discussions they're moderating. Better to deal with that at face value. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #189 on: 20:13:53, 15-09-2008 » |
|
Let's face it, sooner or later he would have been shown the door no matter who was moderating. It's a shame to have to do that to anyone, but it's also a shame that although Ian presumably holds his views sincerely enough, his actual posting behaviour was indistinguishable from that of a troll. It isn't fair to the majority of the membership to judge him on the basis of personal acquaintance outside this and other messageboards - what matters is what appears here on the screen, and ( look for yourself) most of it is the work of someone who would prefer to bring the MB crashing down around his ears (as has already almost happened once) than to hold back from constantly parading his obsessions on it. Regarding your point, TF, about Ollie "jumping in", it was perfectly clear to me what Baz was being accused of - if Ollie's post brought that to the notice of more people, all well and good, but it was all there at the start, not really for the first time either, and I wasn't entirely sure that I hadn't been included along with Baz on this occasion. I agree that separate moderator accounts might make things more transparent, though I've never had any difficulty seeing which hat any of the moderators here was wearing at any given time. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Antheil
|
|
« Reply #190 on: 20:23:44, 15-09-2008 » |
|
Well personally, I do not see any advantage with Ollie disappearing into a phone booth and emerging with his underpants on top of his tights. We would all know he is the same person?!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Reality, sa molesworth 2, is so sordid it makes me shudder
|
|
|
|
Ron Dough
|
|
« Reply #191 on: 20:32:38, 15-09-2008 » |
|
Well personally, I do not see any advantage with Ollie disappearing into a phone booth and emerging with his underpants on top of his tights. We would all know he is the same person?!
Even less advantageous if Ron's expected to wear underpants over his kilt. (All the more so since he doesn't even usually wear them under.) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Morticia
|
|
« Reply #192 on: 20:37:25, 15-09-2008 » |
|
Thank you for sharing that with us, Moderator Dough. Anyone seen my sal volatile?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
harmonyharmony
|
|
« Reply #193 on: 20:54:54, 15-09-2008 » |
|
Firstly, I lost interest in this thread when it started becoming, er, rather predictable; but having read it again I can only echo George's posting above. It's of course insidious to continue with its essentials now that Ian can no longer defend himself, but whilst I would probably take issue with one or two minor charges against him, on the whole I am happy to abide by our Moderators' collective decision, and certainly understand the reasons for it.
The broader issue of moderation has been called into question here and elsewhere. In my view, it's an extremely healthy thing that we have three (elected) moderators. Triumverates are not always wonderful things, but I personally am confident in their abilities and think they do a grand (and often thankless) job.
Just like to say that I agree with Martle here but I'd also like to add that the advantage of separate identities for a moderator acting as a poster and the same moderator acting as a moderator is that the distinction on the page is immediately apparent, and there is never any ambiguity over which hat is being worn. It's not a matter of anyone being 'tricked' into thinking that the poster is not the same person as the moderator, just making sure that everyone understands what's going on. I hope that makes sense. I'm not feeling particularly cogent this evening. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'is this all we can do?' anonymous student of the University of Berkeley, California quoted in H. Draper, 'The new student revolt' (New York: Grove Press, 1965) http://www.myspace.com/itensemble |
|
|
|
Turfan Fragment
|
|
« Reply #194 on: 21:03:14, 15-09-2008 » |
|
Well personally, I do not see any advantage with Ollie disappearing into a phone booth and emerging with his underpants on top of his tights. We would all know he is the same person?!
You're misrepresenting my point, as is everyone else (except HH), but I am happy to let it rest. Now you can lock this thread as far as I'm concerned as well. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
