Good News stories

[french frank]

A general point the homepage shows that there are currently 163 "active users" - these being registered members active in recent days - whether 10 days or 30 days the vBulletin admins can't agree.

The vast majority of members want to use this forum for the reason that it was set up - to discuss R3 and particularly classical music. The half dozen who want to discuss politics are too few and post too often to have a special accommodation for their preferences. If people do want to discuss politics, they should take Bryn's good advice and go elsewhere. They will still be very welcome to post here on the subjects of most interest.

[Bryn]

A general point the homepage shows that there are currently 163 "active users" - these being registered members active in recent days - whether 10 days or 30 days the vBulletin admins can't agree.

The vast majority of members want to use this forum for the reason that it was set up - to discuss R3 and particularly classical music. The half dozen who want to discuss politics are too few and post too often to have a special accommodation for their preferences. If people do want to discuss politics, they should take Bryn's good advice and go elsewhere. They will still be very welcome to post here on the subjects of most interest.

Very clearly, a politician's response.

[RichardB]

a special accommodation

What "special accommodation"? This is what I don't understand. As you're aware, people post here about gardening, cooking, science, medicine, travel, the war in Ukraine, pets, etc. etc. etc. - why don't they require "special accommodation" too? Is it because people get into arguments? There's more rancour every day on the various choir-related threads from what I've seen. So the only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that there are some officious busybodies among the administrators who object to what has been called the left-wing bias of posters on politics-related subjects and thus want to shut discussion down. Why don't they also shut down discussion of historically-informed performance practice or electronic music or anything else that offends their delicate sensibilities? Or they could treat forum members like adults.

[Old Grumpy]

There's more rancour every day on the various choir-related threads from what I've seen.

[french frank]

Or they could treat forum members like adults.

The strong temptation is to respond to that question.

Someone recently asked whether there was 'anyone above french frank' on the forum. There isn't. Mark 'owns' the website because he owns the domain name of for3. org. When FoR3 gave up campaigning I imagined the website would have no further use, but Mark wanted to keep it for the domain name. So the forum still had a place to exist.

The forum "belongs" to me because I bought the original software licence, and have paid any costs that have arisen since, most recently for the enforced upgrade following the end of FutureQuest. The upgrade cost a little over £200. I was happy to pay it to keep the forum going because I was persuaded that there were many forumistas who appreciated what the forum offered. Were it to be the case that the majority no longer appreciated what the forum offers, I would close it down.

I think it's unreasonable for a few people who presumably consider their own contributions indispensable to the success of the forum to try to dictate what the forum should be. If it is not what they, or other forumistas, want, they are invited to leave. If the argument continues I might begin to get annoyed

[AuntDaisy]

Someone recently asked whether there was 'anyone above french frank' on the forum. There isn't. Mark 'owns' the website because he owns the domain name of for3. org. When FoR3 gave up campaigning I imagined the website would have no further use, but Mark wanted to keep it for the domain name. So the forum still had a place to exist.

The forum "belongs" to me because I bought the original software licence, and have paid any costs that have arisen since, most recently for the enforced upgrade following the end of FutureQuest. The upgrade cost a little over £200. I was happy to pay it to keep the forum going because I was persuaded that there were many forumistas who appreciated what the forum offered. Were it to be the case that the majority no longer appreciated what the forum offers, I would close it down.

Thank you French Frank & Mark for paying to keep the forum going - happy to chip in, as others have already offered, if it helps.

[french frank]

Thank you French Frank & Mark for paying to keep the forum going - happy to chip in, as others have already offered, if it helps.

Thank you - and in fairness, several others have offered too, but the job of collecting in donations and accounting for them properly would be a nuisance whereas paying any necessary costs is not.

There is also - for me - a warning that if people contribute to the costs they have at least a moral right to have a say in how it is run. The whole purpose (and legacy) of Friends of Radio 3 woild be subverted if factions decided that they wanted the forum to offer something different. It is a common feature of forums to disallow polical discussion: the point is made clear and members understand that if they join a forum voluntarily they stick to any house rules. People are free to join this forum (they do) and they are free to leave (they also do).

[Bryn]

Thank you - and in fairness, several others have offered too, but the job of collecting in donations and accounting for them properly would be a nuisance whereas paying any necessary costs is not.

There is also - for me - a warning that if people contribute to the costs they have at least a moral right to have a say in how it is run. The whole purpose (and legacy) of Friends of Radio 3 woild be subverted if factions decided that they wanted the forum to offer something different. It is a common feature of forums to disallow polical discussion: the point is made clear and members understand that if they join a forum voluntarily they stick to any house rules. People are free to join this forum (they do) and they are free to leave (they also do).

Ah, the no representation without taxation, argument.

[Frances_iom]

Ah, the no representation without taxation, argument.

worked for the Americans but not for the Manx who were taken over in 1765 (same session as the stamp act that undid the American colonies) and didn't regain any degree of independence from Treasury control for about 100 years

[eighthobstruction]

....James you drew the short straw....(stiffly) Yes.....David?....Ah um is Angela Merkel still about??....Ulcer on the Rhine? who's that?....are those pork luncheon meat sarnies?... lovely....

[RichardB]

I think it's unreasonable for a few people who presumably consider their own contributions indispensable to the success of the forum to try to dictate what the forum should be. If it is not what they, or other forumistas, want, they are invited to leave.

I don't recognise this idea of people "considering their own contributions indispensable to the success of the forum". I'm sure nobody thinks that. The issue I'm trying to get at here is that decisions over what is and isn't permitted to be discussed on the forum are made for opaque and seemingly arbitrary reasons. Beyond that is the question of why anyone feels that there should be a ban on certain subjects but not others (which might be equally distant from what the core business of the forum is agreed to be). But it seems from what you say that the forum is run as a personal fiefdom rather than an open and democratic space, so I guess that issues like transparency and censorship aren't relevant. That at least is clear now.

[Joseph K]

I think it's unreasonable for a few people who presumably consider their own contributions indispensable to the success of the forum to try to dictate what the forum should be.

I don't think my contribution is indispensable to the success of the forum nor am I trying to dictate what the forum should be - only the admin/moderators can do that obviously. We were told there were complaints about political debate - clearly these complaints carry greater weight than our counter-complaints, to coin a term, for some reason. I think it's disingenuous to remove political debate because this is a radio 3 forum - I don't listen to it often but just the other week I caught some of Private Passions where political subjects were discussed (it was about colonialism and the concept of wokeness to be exact). No one was trolling on those threads or swearing or using ad homs. So this clampdown seems arbitrary. As for the election and party politics, I and the left I'm guessing will feel politically homeless right now so I'm certainly unlikely to be defending Labour or any other party now. Hence the justification for this censorship is completely lacking in substance as far as I'm concerned.

[eighthobstruction]

It is what it is and there is no doubt about the care, patience, fortitude, endurance, forbearance, devoting of time and erudition of the drummer who owns the drum....boom boom I say bravo...

[french frank]

I'm beginning to get to the end of my tether.

This is the Radio 3 Forum
The unofficial forum for BBC Radio 3 and the Proms

It lays out its stall. If it's not what you want, you go elsewhere - and it does seem fairly obvious just how many people are dissatisfied. People need to decide now: This forum is what you want or it isn't. That is my last word on the subject - which is not an invitation to other people to have another word.

[RichardB]

the justification for this censorship is completely lacking in substance as far as I'm concerned.

It doesn't need to have substance. Substance is trumped by ownership, as 8thO has pointed out.

Well, it was nice, some of the time, while it lasted.