Closing threads?????

[Guest]

I'm not sure that the closing of slightly contentious threads without warning is a particularly good idea, or that it reflects well on this board, given that the freedom of expression, within reason, is what we all support.

I read the Goodall thread, having hitherto known (and cared) nothing about the subject. I found it mildly interesting. I found Cellini's first post unnecessarily aggressive - but as we all know that's his way - and Mandryka's reply (by contrast) admirably restrained and courteous.

I think we should be wary of imputing underhand motivations to people just because we may not agree with them. I expect the thread would have died the usual death when people had read it and had their say, as indeed most threads of all descriptions do.

bws to all

S-S!

[amateur51]

French frank gave her reasons, which seemed reasonable to me.

'given that the freedom of expression, within reason, is what we all support.' is a bit rich coming from someone who puts other posters on ignore because he can't come up with adequate responses.

[Pianorak]

French frank gave her reasons, which seemed reasonable to me. . .

Seconded.

[Simon]

We posted very close together. I must have missed ff's last message on the bottom of the thread, so I'm sorry about that. So we'll await the outcome, which I have every reason to believe will be fair.

Worth mentioning, perhaps, that ff states:

...could I advise members, please, not to make assumptions about people's motives in posting, especially not those of new members.

...which is more or less the point that I made in my earlier comment.

[Cellini]

I don't know if you are up to speed with other threads Simon, and by your comments I would imagine you possibly are not. Maybe you should look at all the threads containing posts from the person we are discussing.

I think it was Petrushka who first mentioned that his heart sank when he saw the title and contents of the thread, and it was exactly that reaction I had.

You should also note that the original post has be edited somewhat since my original reaction.

I'm also a bit surprised at your "holier-than-thou" attitude.

Anyway I don't have to make excuses to you, as I think you had big problems with your attitude and people's reactions only a few weeks ago, if I remember correctly. Please correct me if that is wrong.

Best wishes

Cellini

[french frank]

I'm not sure that the closing of slightly contentious threads without warning is a particularly good idea, or that it reflects well on this board, given that the freedom of expression, within reason, is what we all support.

I'm not sure that the phrase 'without warning' is justified. Several people, including me, had expressed some unease at the way the thread was progressing. The board is 'reactively moderated' and a Reported Post message was received - which I also announced. With a further message appearing, I decided to close the thread to allow some pause for thought. It was suggested that the thread be deleted which I don't favour. It is better for people to be able to read what has been posted and - more importantly - allows for the eventual moderation decision to be judged for reasonableness and fairness.

As I made clear, I was also concerned that the discussion had veered into a debate on motivation. There was clearly unease about the thread from several people so I elected to close it temporarily which allows people to form their opinions about the pros and cons of the closure, and without the risk of exchanges getting out of hand when there was no one to intervene. The temporary closure was not related to the initial subject of the thread but to the reaction it provoked - including an official Report.


If anyone else wants to excpress an opinion on the decision to close the thread, please do so.

[amateur51]

A pity that the Member for Nutwood has not seen fit to reply.

I don't think there's much interest in this thread, french frank. You did the sensible thing, no-one else has made a fuss about it apart from the Member for Nutwood.

I think he may be on piece rate

[Bryn]

Apart from anything else. The page originally linked to offered very little that either fans of or detractors from the conductor in question would not have already known about. He excelled in the music of one anti-semite and got on particularly well with fellow ex(?)-fascists like Legge and Lizzy Blackhead. Surely we all knew that? Their revolting politics and general characters notwithstanding, they were all three very good at their jobs as musicians and recording producer respectively. On the whole, I try to avoid their recordings.

[Tapiola]

I understand french frank's concerns over motivation, though a wider issue may be that of whether one can or should be able to separate the art produced by a particular individual from that individual him- or herself, if that individual's views or character are deemed to be offensive.

Personally, I do not like Schwartzkopf and can live without Goodall, but this is for purely artistic reasons; I do not particularly like S's voice and Goodall is just too slow for too much of the time in Wagner, for my tastes. Their politics are irrelevant to me, much as I abhor and despise prejudice in any form.

Does knowledge of Wagner's horrible personality and belief systems affect or reduce my love of his music? No. Does knowledge that Caravaggio and Gesualdo were murderers hinder my love of the work that they produced? No.

As a former University professor of mine once said: People can always let you down, but great art cannot.

[Simon]

The temporary closure was not related to the initial subject of the thread but to the reaction it provoked - including an official Report.

I'm more than happy with the decision to close for "pause for thought" especially as ff was away.

But what does still concern me is that a thread was closed due "to the reaction it provoked". As all will know, I have always been against censorship except where the material is truly offensive, whatever the politics, and it genuinely does concern me that if a few people gang up - and maybe one "complains" - all of a sudden we have no rights of reply and no further discussion is possible. That's what happens elsewhere, maybe, but here, the quality of debate (in general) and the common sense of 99% of us, surely means that unless something disastrous occurs we don't need to resort to censorship of any kind. (And who is to say that it is not "the reaction" itself that is mainly at fault?)

I'm also with the earlier point made - indeed have made it myself before - that it's far better to leave a post there for all to see than to complain about it. I think I only complained maybe 3 or 4 times in 5 years on the old BBC boards, and only once out of these occasions was on my own behalf.

I don't know enough about the posters on the thread in question to make any attempt to judge motivation - and I don't think that we should do that anyway, certainly not after a mere handful of posts. Nor do I believe that any of us is sufficiently precognitive to decide how the thread may or may not have developed. Also, if some of us are particularly sensitive to certain subjects, that's down to us, not those who post about them.

As you know I'm happy - and grateful - to be here. I value the comments of almost all who post and I hope I have helped in my small way to make the forum an interesting place to be and to create a welcoming atmosphere for new arrivals. And it's becaue I value so much the openness that we can enjoy so that I worry when things like this happen. In this case FF did what was needed at the time, I'm sure. But we must, I think, be very careful not to complain about things without very good, and concrete, reasons.

[JimD]

To which might be added that if the intention of the poster were mischievous, or worse, then heavy-handed interventions play into his or her hands. Silence or calm reasoned debate seem to be the appropriate responses except in very extreme circumstances. The axiom 'don't feed the trolls' is probably a good one in most circumstances. (I'm not suggesting that anyone here is a troll.)

[Bryn]

My understanding is that what was removed was a link to an inflammatory ultra-right site promoting both racism and fascism. Such links attract web-bots which could all too easily flag these boards up as sympathetic to such views. The removal of any such links is to be welcomed, I feel. Thank you frenchie.

[french frank]

I would say in connection with Bryn's comment, that it's perfectly possibly that the link was posted in innocence, but the site is considered by a number of sources as 'far right', 'racist' and 'white supremacist'. It is not a UK site and was certainly unknown to me, but there were enough clues to lead me to look further and I judged it an 'unsuitable' link.

There is also one other factor which has arisen which I do find disturbing. I won't say anything on this at the moment but will seek an explanation.

In general, rather than on this case: I think we all remember how on the BBC boards we went through a phase when there always seemed to be one or two threads on a particular subject, giving the impression that messageboarders were obsessed with that subject when in fact it was one or two people constantly reintroducing the topic in a new form. In my view it made the messageboards an unpleasant place and gave them a bad name, and there didn't seem to be a way to prevent it happening. Ignoring the threads is a counsel of perfection: it doesn't happen. There will always be those who respond, and those who resolve not to eventually get dragged back in. I don't think calling a halt to such discussions would be a denial of free speech - which doesn't consist of being able to say what you want when you want where you want. Where there is no longer any debate of substance going on and exchanges are reduced to sarcasm and insults, I think it is in the interests of the forum to close the thread.

Anyone who has ever acted as a moderator knows that it's an impossible job: whatever you decide, there will be those who object.

I want to make a couple of enquiries in the morning and will report back.

[Simon]

I don't disagree with any of your last post, ff.

As for:

Anyone who has ever acted as a moderator knows that it's an impossible job: whatever you decide, there will be those who object.

I hope it's clear that I am not "objecting" to anything you have done in this case, given the facts as we now have them. My cautions on freedom of expression were sincerely meant and I feel that the comments were worth making. Especially the one about not complaining because of some perceived motivation that might or might not be real.

Anyway, maybe one could hope that as a result of this discussion the way forward in the future, should the need arise, will be clearer.

[Mandryka]

My understanding is that what was removed was a link to an inflammatory ultra-right site promoting both racism and fascism. Such links attract web-bots which could all too easily flag these boards up as sympathetic to such views. The removal of any such links is to be welcomed, I feel. Thank you frenchie.

Hold on a moment! The link I posted was to a blog article on Goodall, in which his 'assocations' were described at length. I wasn't aware that it was an 'ultra right wing site.' The tone of the piece was condemnatory, anyway - why would an 'ultra right-wing site' condemn Goodall?

Being (relatively) new here, I'm a bit surprised at the paranoia which my thread - which was started in all innocence - seemed to provoke. I am interesetd in the political affiliations of musicians and artists generally, but that's all it is - an interest.