Report-back: any comments?

[Anna]

Anna, mein Kind, why should you not be entitled? Surely you go back to the closing of the old Classical Forum?

Well yes of course frenchie, and you of all people should know you take what I say with a pinch of salt, but I did give up the R3 MBs around 2007 except for an occasional foray so that's why I don't feel I am really entitled because, in theory, I am a newcomer (although I have fond memories of lawrie packer, I wonder whatever happened to him? I think he went to Australia and got involved in cricket)

As to the VMs, to me it strikes me as slightly voyeuristic that anyone can read conversations, it seems a sort of sub-facebook application which could easily be done on say, facebook.

Apart from that, I think this MB is pretty good and moderation doesn't seem to be needed as the R3 trouble makers seem to have decamped elsewhere. As to Hosts, that's tricky because on the old CMOR MBs (which many won't remember) the Hosts joined in and in fact initiated discussions. Later Hosts were, of course, invisible or very visible Rottweilers. So, I think maintain the status quo for a while would be the best thing. Tis still early days. Oh, the smoked haddock in the bicycle basket was an old jibe at Simon about Elgar cycling thru the misty cloisters to CE whilst dreaming of his housekeeper and some Jersey Royals.

On a technical note, I find the front page doesn't refresh and when I go back to it, there are no new posts so I think it's dead and go away. Also, would it be better if you could read new posts without having to log in? For people merely browsing that may be an incentive to join if they see something interesting.

As to the boards, I'm not sure New Music would get many takers but I cannot see, is there a Composer of the Week thread? Also, if I wanted to start a thread on, say, Baroque, would I do it on performance or cd review?

[Simon]

Oh, the smoked haddock in the bicycle basket was an old jibe at Simon about Elgar cycling thru the misty cloisters to CE whilst dreaming of his housekeeper and some Jersey Royals.

I can't recall anything about Jersey Royals...

Anyway, behave yourself - or I'll start a trend calling you "my dear" again...

[Don Petter]

I have never used, or felt the need for, the VM function, but the PM function has been useful on our quizzing thread where one could discuss the possible solution with the setter without spoiling it for others who were still enjoying the chase.

[Eudaimonia]

As to the VMs, to me it strikes me as slightly voyeuristic that anyone can read conversations, it seems a sort of sub-facebook application which could easily be done on say, facebook.

None of us want to be on Facebook. Even here, I'm chafing at the VM 1,000 character message limit-- what on earth would I have to do there? No thanks! The only reason I have a Facebook account at all was to join the Promenaders' Facebook group after being asked so many times: I don't post, I only read and take PMs. It's just not for me.

Nobody need be a voyeur; everyone is welcome to join in, pipe up, and participate however they please. In fact, I love to hear from people-- but if people want to lurk and never post a word, that's fine too. Who am I to tell you how to interact with me? Do as you will.

As of this morning, we're up to 930 visits and 400 messages. It's not hurting a soul...if you kill it off, we'll all be sad.

[french frank]

PMs are quite different - and useful (I was alerted five minutes ago that I'd closed a thread - one does need to know these things).

If there had been an avalanche of messages insisting that social networking was discontinued, I think the view would have prevailed. Clearly most people aren't bothered. Only one point, and that is that we do have a bandwidth limit which we're currently well inside, but if VMing seemed to be a problem at any time in the future we might have to revisit on those grounds alone. For the present, then, carry on VMing ...

[antongould]

Excellent please tell us when we are approaching bandwidth limits.

[Daring Tripod]

As I originally wrote when the Committee was set up, the whole outcome of exercises when committees are set up, is that they feel it their duty to change things and make new ‘rules’, otherwise, why have a committee in the first place? My prediction seems to have taken the firs step to proving right!

My son, a technocrat, always cites a golden rule “If it works don’t touch it!” and this site has indeed worked.

As you wrote FF, we are still a small and by and large happy community and this site has proved to be a pleasure for us who read and use it. So, why change it? As far as I am aware, no moderation has apparently been used because we have all been sensible and as for those entertaining ‘highways and byways’ threads, they have proved to be a pleasant, entertaining and often educational diversion for many of us. As long as they do not grow too much, why touch them? If you don’t like them, don’t read them!

[french frank]

Well, DT, my main concern is to set up a form of organisation in which other people take over some of the duties which I'm currently trying to cope with single-handedly

This is to a large extent the same community as used the BBC boards and there were certain aspects of them (not least, I would say, the result of the capricious and laissez-faire attitude of the BBC moderation/hosting) which got out of control and created trouble. If members avoid provocative postings (not to be confused with controversial subjects though some may find the difference hard to define), everything will be fine. The aim has been to provide a forum which offers similar discussion facilities to the BBC boards, which I think it now does.

I've been struck down by an on-and-off flu since New Year and even my prolonged absence is barely noticed! I'm therefore hopeful the forum can continue with minimal direction. But the community will develop - I'm amazed at how many newcomers have found the forum, most, I think, referred here by the BBC website. As long as things remain happy, all is well. But forums have certain unfortunate characteristics and we can't guarantee that they won't develop here.

As for rules, I would be happy with the basics which most forums have:

Don't make offensive posts (including gratuitous swearing)

Don't be insulting to other members

Don't disrupt serious discussions with your personal spamming.

[Daring Tripod]

How refreshing to read your post FF. May I be permitted to put down my (undoubtedly minority) view how I see this ‘committee’ should be initially working?
a). At this early stage it’s prime object should be to expand the users of the site as, unless this can be done, we can never hope to influence R3 faltering programming and objectives. To do this, needs ideas, dedicated work and yes, funding. Set a numerical objective. Also, I feel it important that clear instructions how to use the site in Plain English be featured for all newcomers. Various items are at present spread all over the board.
b). Take work off FF for the everyday running of the site.
c). No new rules and regulations now unless vital to keep the site attractive and running smoothly.
d). Organise new threads where deemed necessary by the regular users.
And that’s it folks. Remember, it’s easier to destroy but harder to create.
I’ve put the flag up, now you can start shooting at it!

[french frank]

Thanks for the views, DT. If you investigated the Committee Room discussions, the question of 'marketing' [pppphhhhh!] the forum was raised. At the moment I know that we are getting a very healthy number of daily referrals from the BBC site, mostly from the old messageboards and, I assume, from the abundant links that were left there. That is surely the best way to reach Radio 3 listeners who are our primary target group. So I'd argue that this wasn't the prime object at the moment (they may remove the messageboards entirely, which will change the situation).

For b), we have the Host system now set up. Hosts need a bit more joint discussion/querying &c (which I shall set up) and then I shall feel very much less obliged to be trying to keep an eye on everything. Already their (voluntary) support is hugely, hugely appreciated.

On c), call me an optomist in the face of all sorts of depressing evidence elsewhere, and I agree with you. The best thing is for us to cultivate a tolerant, laid-back attitude of general civility where the community, as a whole, disapproves of abuse and the constant attack on particular opinions. This can work in both directions, but people should realise that No Response is the best way to bury 'unpopular' threads - believe me! If you find someone's opinion beyond the pale of respectability, then probability suggests most people will agree. Say nothing and let it die rather than sustaining the 'debate' for weeks on end and getting the forum a bad reputation. If I have to keep drawing people's attention to this, I will!!! What's more, I am minded to be tyrannical about this (and this could mean, not only closing threads, but editing opinions that I agree with), so much am I concerned that the forum is viewed as a rational, relevant and sane contribution to our wide-ranging topics. I would not stop people initiating threads - unless the community asked me to. But they have the option to do so and should use it.

For d), that is one special duty of the Hosts in respect of Radio 3 topics, but all users should be encouraged to start their own discussions. Threads about Radio 3 will - I assure you - have the BBC watching; threads about the veggie patch won't.

[Simon]

I couldn't help noticing that the sentence "Take work off FF for the everyday running of the site" includes 5 fs in a row and makes sense. I think that's quite unusual.

As you were! :)

[amateur51]

Is there a list of hosts that we can access & see please?

[Uncle Monty]

Is there a list of hosts that we can access & see please?

Yes -- name and shame

[subcontrabass]

Is there a list of hosts that we can access & see please?

They are listed for each forum - just click on the forum name and then scroll down.

[french frank]

Yes, distinguishing (for the puposes of clarification) a forum (the categories indicated on the homepage by being in a red band - Classical Forum, World &c) from a messageboard (the actual boards where the threads are to be found): click on your messageboard (e.g. CD Review) and scroll down to the bottom of the page. I'm afraid they're described as Moderators because you have to get into the software code to change it, 'Host' being our own custom title. Useful to see the names because you can then see which ones are online at the time if you want to PM one of them.