Moderating decisions always come under scrutiny, and where members have queries, reservations or criticisms, the best course is to post a thread here, as Simon has done. This allows others to put their views and for me as, currently the sole, moderator to judge the feelings of the community. A decision may subsequently require to be defended more fully or to be reversed. Any discussion is helpful in developing moderating practices which suit the community and with which everyone feels comfortable.
However, in spite of my attempts to ‘sell’ the forum as a separate entitly from FoR3, many people think of it and describe it as the forum of Friends of Radio 3. That being the case, it’s possible that views and members posting here could be represented as somehow characteristic of FoR3 and its Supporters (with a capital ‘S’ – namely registered supporters). FoR3 would be a hostage to fortune if it allowed all comers to post whatever they liked, in whatever style, as frequently as they wished.
I said that in closing the recent thread I concentrated on the way that the discussion had developed, not on the original subject. Two points: I judged that there was no longer a useful discussion taking place on the original subject and that comments were being made that could be inflammatory. The second point forms a distinction from benign off-topic meanderings which are almost inevitable in forums – and often very fruitful. On the basis of these two points, I would not propose to reopen the particular thread in question: the rest of the forum is, after all, available for new discussions.
However, a word to the wise here: if you regularly find your threads or posts greeted with hostility and aggression from posters, then perhaps you should also rethink what you’re doing and why others are questioning your motives. It may be that they are justified in doing so.
Moving on from the present case: I mentioned the ‘reputation’ which the old BBC boards gained and I know many people felt uncomfortable about some of the discussions and gave up posting there. I think that moderation should be firm towards individuals who attempt to hijack, or dominate, the forum with their own – what one might call kindly – ‘hobbyhorses’ when the community makes it clear that it doesn’t want that. There is a world of difference between a “fanatic” with a wealth of information and enthusiasm, and narrow obsessions, especially when they are widely considered to verge on the socially unacceptable. The problem comes not in expressing views appropriately but in hijacking or dominating the discussions in such a way that these topics are constantly present in the forum. It gives the impression that the forum is obsessed with these topics when it is only one or two people.
However, in spite of my attempts to ‘sell’ the forum as a separate entitly from FoR3, many people think of it and describe it as the forum of Friends of Radio 3. That being the case, it’s possible that views and members posting here could be represented as somehow characteristic of FoR3 and its Supporters (with a capital ‘S’ – namely registered supporters). FoR3 would be a hostage to fortune if it allowed all comers to post whatever they liked, in whatever style, as frequently as they wished.
I said that in closing the recent thread I concentrated on the way that the discussion had developed, not on the original subject. Two points: I judged that there was no longer a useful discussion taking place on the original subject and that comments were being made that could be inflammatory. The second point forms a distinction from benign off-topic meanderings which are almost inevitable in forums – and often very fruitful. On the basis of these two points, I would not propose to reopen the particular thread in question: the rest of the forum is, after all, available for new discussions.
However, a word to the wise here: if you regularly find your threads or posts greeted with hostility and aggression from posters, then perhaps you should also rethink what you’re doing and why others are questioning your motives. It may be that they are justified in doing so.
Moving on from the present case: I mentioned the ‘reputation’ which the old BBC boards gained and I know many people felt uncomfortable about some of the discussions and gave up posting there. I think that moderation should be firm towards individuals who attempt to hijack, or dominate, the forum with their own – what one might call kindly – ‘hobbyhorses’ when the community makes it clear that it doesn’t want that. There is a world of difference between a “fanatic” with a wealth of information and enthusiasm, and narrow obsessions, especially when they are widely considered to verge on the socially unacceptable. The problem comes not in expressing views appropriately but in hijacking or dominating the discussions in such a way that these topics are constantly present in the forum. It gives the impression that the forum is obsessed with these topics when it is only one or two people.
Comment