Paris, anyone?

[Richard Barrett]

The problem with political debate is that it is all about opinions

Some opinions however are held on the basis of insufficient or incorrect information, and part of the point of discussing things is indeed to sort out opinion from fact. Whether a consensus is reached is surely not the point, and I don't agree that it's necessary for arguments to go around and around without progressing at all. Often the subject is an item of current news which can mean the discussion stalls until new events and/or items of information come to light.

Musical debate on the other hand really is all about opinions (which as you say are often expressed forthrightly), and also never reaches a consensus. And I almost never look at the Choir thread, but as has already been mentioned I can remember some exchanges with regard to historically-informed performance which indeed became just as animated as those on political subjects sometimes are.

In my opinion the "problem" here is not so much what subjects are talked about but the way they're talked about. I think it would be a lot easier and less artificial to suggest that personally insulting comments be excluded than to censor the range of subjects that can be discussed.

[ahinton]

Some opinions however are held on the basis of insufficient or incorrect information, and part of the point of discussing things is indeed to sort out opinion from fact. Whether a consensus is reached is surely not the point, and I don't agree that it's necessary for arguments to go around and around without progressing at all. Often the subject is an item of current news which can mean the discussion stalls until new events and/or items of information come to light.

Musical debate on the other hand really is all about opinions (which as you say are often expressed forthrightly), and also never reaches a consensus. And I almost never look at the Choir thread, but as has already been mentioned I can remember some exchanges with regard to historically-informed performance which indeed became just as animated as those on political subjects sometimes are.

In my opinion the "problem" here is not so much what subjects are talked about but the way they're talked about. I think it would be a lot easier and less artificial to suggest that personally insulting comments be excluded than to censor the range of subjects that can be discussed.

Hear, hear!

[Richard Tarleton]

Some opinions however are held on the basis of insufficient or incorrect information, and part of the point of discussing things is indeed to sort out opinion from fact.

The problem with politics, economics and all sorts of other things is that two people, or sets of people, in possession of the same facts, can still have wildly different opinions. This is discussed in my oft-quoted favourite book, "Why Most Things Fail" by Paul Ormerod. Religion is different, as there are no facts involved - it's all opinion - or "belief".

[Petrushka]

Some opinions however are held on the basis of insufficient or incorrect information, and part of the point of discussing things is indeed to sort out opinion from fact. Whether a consensus is reached is surely not the point, and I don't agree that it's necessary for arguments to go around and around without progressing at all. Often the subject is an item of current news which can mean the discussion stalls until new events and/or items of information come to light.

Musical debate on the other hand really is all about opinions (which as you say are often expressed forthrightly), and also never reaches a consensus. And I almost never look at the Choir thread, but as has already been mentioned I can remember some exchanges with regard to historically-informed performance which indeed became just as animated as those on political subjects sometimes are.

In my opinion the "problem" here is not so much what subjects are talked about but the way they're talked about. I think it would be a lot easier and less artificial to suggest that personally insulting comments be excluded than to censor the range of subjects that can be discussed.

Thanks for this excellently reasoned contribution. The only issue with the bit highlighted is that it would involve a good deal of moderation from FF and/or hosts who no doubt have neither the time nor inclination to look at every post. Personally, I'd favour a 'three strikes and you're out' policy whereby persistent offenders are warned to moderate their behaviour or face banishment.

The Paris tragedy was the first big news story that broke since the P&CA board was discontinued and it was inevitable that we all wanted to talk about it here. It presented FF with a dilemma - let it continue or close it down immediately? - and the right choice was made in my view as a fine, reasoned discussion ensued. However, once the first bit of mud got slung one of the Hosts should have stepped in. Threads like this rarely die a natural death: they nearly always descend into mud-slinging and name-calling and need to be wound down before this point is reached. Amazed it reached 400+ posts before we got there.

[MrGongGong]

I really fail to see what the 'problem' folks have is.
People are different, they discuss and communicate in different ways
People communicate differently depending on the context and the subject of the discussion
One can either embrace this diversity as a wonderful thing or try to make everyone stick to the same way of interacting
If people want a 'civilised' debating society with a structured set of rules that govern all interactions then maybe an internet forum isn't the place to be?
People are passionate about important things like vibrato, microtonality and the NHS and a good thing to IMV


Let's have more rules then, it will make for a more 'reasonable' debate, let's apply the kind of brutal compression that we all love when it's used on R3 broadcasts More rules will make everyone happy, just look how the people of Saudi Arabia are, joy in the hearts and a spring in the step of everyone.

If you don't like what people write you don't have to read it.
One persons 'off topic' rant is another persons interesting diversion.

[aeolium]

I really fail to see what the 'problem' folks have is.
People are different, they discuss and communicate in different ways
People communicate differently depending on the context and the subject of the discussion
One can either embrace this diversity as a wonderful thing or try to make everyone stick to the same way of interacting
If people want a 'civilised' debating society with a structured set of rules that govern all interactions then maybe an internet forum isn't the place to be?
People are passionate about important things like vibrato, microtonality and the NHS and a good thing to IMV

No, I don't think you see the problem at all. In fact, this forum, which has been set up and is run by ff, has really only one important rule for the conduct of discussions, namely this one:

Please treat other members respectfully, even/especially if you disagree with what they are saying; and please do not start topics or post messages which are designed to be provocative or which explicitly or implicitly target or disparage other members, individually or as a group. Do not use offensive language.

There really never is a good reason for resorting to personal attacks on other people posting. It does not strengthen the argument of the person doing it and it simply provokes the same kind of behaviour from others, especially the recipient. However strongly you believe in the arguments you advance, it is perfectly possible to advance them by keeping to the issues, and where you disagree with others, producing evidence and arguments which support your contention and weaken theirs. None of this is in conflict with the house rule which I quoted, yet sadly it has seemed impossible for many debates (particularly but not exclusively those which took place on the Politics board) to take place without personal attacks or other forms of disrespect. Jonathan Swift's mantra was "lash the vice and spare the name" but for those who spoilt and disrupted arguments on the Politics board it was almost the opposite: so strongly did they identify the opinion they opposed with the person expressing it, that the attack was on the person as much as (or more than) the opinion. That was - and is - the problem.

If you don't like what people write you don't have to read it.

No - if it conflicts with what I think is a perfectly justifiable house rule, no-one should have to read it, and the person writing it should be warned that it shouldn't be written on this forum.

[MrGongGong]

There really never is a good reason for resorting to personal attacks on other people posting. .

Some people (myself included at times) perceive a 'personal attack' where none exists.
Some people feel that any criticism of their beliefs is a 'personal attack' , which maybe has something to do with the original subject of this thread.

The pattern of these discussions that I see is that once some folks make short comments rather than lengthy deeply thought essays, some folks get in a bit of a flounce and decide that because things aren't proceeding in the way they would like that it's all gone bad.

[french frank]

Some people (myself included at times) perceive a 'personal attack' where none exists.
Some people feel that any criticism of their beliefs is a 'personal attack' , which maybe has something to do with the original subject of this thread.

I'm very grateful to aeolium for putting the situation as I see. It.

I have deleted the rest of this post as it merely reflects my anger on the way you have behaved. If you can't understand the rules it's best you find a forum somewhere where the rules don't irk you or aren't applied.

[MrGongGong]

I'm very grateful to aeolium for putting the situation as I see. It.

I have deleted the rest of this post as it merely reflects my anger on the way you have behaved. If you can't understand the rules it's best you find a forum somewhere where the rules don't irk you or aren't applied.

Excuse me, where is the place where I have "personally attacked" anyone in this thread?

Unless you really think that saying something is 'utter nonsense' is one?

On second thoughts don't bother with the 'he said, she said' nonsense

bye

[ardcarp]

I began this thread with some trepidation and a very tentative 'Paris, anyone?' not only because issues of race and religion are likely to be highly sensitive, but also because I did not want to upset the ethos that ff so rightly sets out for The Forum.

I was surprised and pleased that in the early stages of the thread most people discussed the highly distressing news event with maturity and restraint. I am sorry to see a bit of a rough and tumble developing. Getting up close and personal really is inexcusable, but I do have some sympathy with Mr GongGong's

If you don't like what people write you don't have to read it.

The snag is, you don't know whether you want to read it or not until you have read it!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

On second thoughts don't bother with the 'he said, she said' nonsense

bye

I sincerely hope that this does not mean that MrGG isn't intending to follow frenchie's suggestion that he leave the Forum. It will be considerably poorer without him, and without his genuine and ongoing experience as a Music practitioner. Considerably.

[Richard Barrett]

I completely agree with everything MrGG has said in his last few posts. There is obviously an unbridgeable gulf of opinion between on the one hand the way ff (and the mysterious faceless people who petition her) wants to run this forum, and/or the way she wants FoR3 to present itself to the world, and on the other hand those of us who feel that rules about what you're allowed to say and how you're allowed to say it sit rather uneasily with for example the subject matter of this thread. It was after all in large part concerned with how important freedom of speech is, and how it might be used responsibly or irresponsibly. I wonder if the reputation of FoR3 in the outside world is really going to be improved by an insistence in its associated forum on selected permissible subjects of discussion, which must be discussed in a particular way, since (presumably) one of the central problems many of us have with Radio 3 itself is a too-intrusive and one-sided editorial policy. But this is not my decision to make. The only decision I can make is whether I wish to participate or not, and I incline very much to MrGG's expressed view on this.

[teamsaint]

I would venture that most comments that cause " offence", do this by virtue of the way that something is said , rather than what is said. I'm sure, for instance plenty of people express disapproval or lack of enthusiasm for music or musical performances much more tactfully on here, than they would do in private, (EG in PMs).
That kind of tactful self censorship, appropriate to the situation, isn't really an unreasonable ask.
One can be passionately against something, and communicate this in written form, whilst retaining an intention not to personally offend.

as a comparison, my other preferred forum, The Saintsweb, has some rules.
main board.: Saints related issues only, ( which stretches a bit at times).
The lounge. General chat on anything, broadly moderated to keep out offensive material, but allowing feisty cut and thrust.
The Muppet show. Moderated more lightly, and more allowing. You know that if you wander in there , it might get a bit fruity.
And, generally it works. Trolls get put in their place, folks obey the rules (mostly), or get moderated.

Obviously FF isn't going to want to follow that model, but it does, broadly work, because people respect the situation.

[Beef Oven!]

I sincerely hope that this does not mean that MrGG isn't intending to follow frenchie's suggestion that he leave the Forum. It will be considerably poorer without him, and without his genuine and ongoing experience as a Music practitioner. Considerably.

Happily, I think you'll find that MrGG's 'bye' refers to the fact that he's going out for the afternoon, rather than quitting the forum.

[Beef Oven!]

I really fail to see what the 'problem' folks have is.
People are different, they discuss and communicate in different ways
People communicate differently depending on the context and the subject of the discussion
One can either embrace this diversity as a wonderful thing or try to make everyone stick to the same way of interacting
If people want a 'civilised' debating society with a structured set of rules that govern all interactions then maybe an internet forum isn't the place to be?
People are passionate about important things like vibrato, microtonality and the NHS and a good thing to IMV


Let's have more rules then, it will make for a more 'reasonable' debate, let's apply the kind of brutal compression that we all love when it's used on R3 broadcasts More rules will make everyone happy, just look how the people of Saudi Arabia are, joy in the hearts and a spring in the step of everyone.

If you don't like what people write you don't have to read it.
One persons 'off topic' rant is another persons interesting diversion.