Deleted thread

[ahinton]

Of course that's FF's point - but if someone afterwards writes 'It's up to FF, of course, but...' there's a lack of appreciation, it seems to me.

Then please allow me to correct you. It was I who wrote that and I did so in the spirit of respecting and appreciating FF's decision; if I made tghat insufficiently clear, I duly apologise and hope that I am doing so now. For the record, I also wrote to FF about this and I have written to a certain member with my view that that member publish an apology to FF, the forum and Richard Barrett in particular for a post that had no place in any civilised discussion, let alone one in the discussion concerned.

[ahinton]

I've said this before but I find the moderation on this messageboard sometimes seriously heavy-handed, as if it's only acceptable to post on subjects one doesn't feel too strongly about and so is able to stay within the realms of polite ("English") conversational propriety. I guess that's the kind of forum most people here (including the forum owner) want to have, is that right?

Whilst I don't happen to agree that moderation on this board is sometimes seriously heavy-handed, I certainly would not want to see the board adopt a policy, written or unwritten, to post only on subjects that might be relied upon to eschew potential controversy and strong feelings. Broadly speaking, I sympathise with aeolium's response to your post here. The kind of ad hominem indulgences that have been witnessed here on occasion - not least the one against you which was entirely unacceptable, bore no conceivable relation to the subject under discussion and resulted in the decision to close the thread - can, of course, be dealt with in different ways; I understand FF's decision and what prompted it, although at the same time I accept that there are possible alternative means by which to address such ad hominem attacks. My concern here would be the risk that a small minority of members might on occasion feel tempted to scupper a thread for whatever reason or none by issuing an ad hominem that they believe might encourage its closure, thereby terminating a discussion and, whilst in reality that risk is probably very small indeed, it cannot entirely be discounted, I think.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i for one am deeply grateful and admiring for the common sense and decency ff applies in her considerable efforts in hosting this forum

some observations on hosting

suspension and pre moderation do work but for a limited period as do the suggested polite forms of moderation

decisive and abrupt action, though it seems brutal, makes a point does it not?

why any member should persist in requesting offensive postings and bad manners should be 'referenced' or archived, let alone tolerated, escapes my reason any worth or value of the discourse is pretty much debased by the absence of civility and reason seems to me

this is an excellent forum because mostly the members are exceeding civil, intelligent, informed and utterly charming , as is ff ....failures of taste and spouts of hostility are our own responsibility and perhaps we might all strive to forego the pleasures of giving offence in whatever cause, no matter how noble .... [mea culpa, mea maxima culpa &c]

thanks ff for acting in a timely and decisive manner

[Richard Barrett]

hmmm... it may be that on this occasion I didn't see the post that broke the camel's back (unless it was one I made myself...), since I don't remember seeing anything that I thought would justify closing the thread.

[jean]

I think we assume this board has quite a lot of lurkers, and it's important they're not put off from joining by anything they happen to read.

[pilamenon]

why any member should persist in requesting offensive postings and bad manners should be 'referenced' or archived, let alone tolerated, escapes my reason

To be fair, I don't think anyone has suggested this.

My view is that ad hominem posts should be removed, and if that does not stop them, the poster should be suspended (rather than pre-moderating and creating extra work for the hosts). That way, healthy discussions can continue.

It's far easier to criticise from a position where you have no responsibility for the content of forum posts.

Indeed, but there is a place, surely, for constructive comment on the way the board is run.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well pilamenon such measures as you request may well have been taken and proven ineffective ... suspended posters reappear in new places and guises, complain elsewhere &c ... and then make attributions about the Frinds of R3 and its cause etc which are undeserved and unhelpful ...

Indeed, but there is a place, surely, for constructive comment on the way the board is run.

Indeed, there surely is .......

[ahinton]

hmmm... it may be that on this occasion I didn't see the post that broke the camel's back (unless it was one I made myself...), since I don't remember seeing anything that I thought would justify closing the thread.

I've sent you a PM about it. I think that you may well have missed the post concerned.

[Simon]

I think that these threads should stay, at least for a while, even if closed to new posts, rather than be deleted immediately.

That way, people can see how the thread developed and make their own judgement.

For myself, I think that the two posts to which I objected - one in particular - were among the most insulting I've ever seen on any decent forum, and deserved a very robust, though carefully worded, response.

[MrGongGong]

Maybe we should ask Richard Barrett by what name he would like to be called ? don't you think Simon ?

[ahinton]

I think that these threads should stay, at least for a while, even if closed to new posts, rather than be deleted immediately.

That way, people can see how the thread developed and make their own judgement.

For myself, I think that the two posts to which I objected - one in particular - were among the most insulting I've ever seen on any decent forum, and deserved a very robust, though carefully worded, response.

Leaving aside your apparent views of the posts to which you objected and what you believe that they deserved, we are presumably being persuaded to take it that your response was, as you claim "very robust" and "carefully worded"; if that is the case, why did it confine itself to an insult and ignore any connection with the topic under discussion?

At this rate, I can almost see this thread about a closed thead being closed...

[Simon]

Maybe we should ask Richard Barrett by what name he would like to be called ? don't you think Simon ?

I think that Mr Barrett forfeited most of his rights to courtesy titles by his utterly offensive comments against scotty, GG. Hence the reason I omitted the courtesy of the "Mr" in my own post.

Good heavens - you and I can be sharp on occasions, but the first of his insults was appalling.

[jean]

Perhaps time to stop making comments about posts nobody can now see?

[ahinton]

I omitted the courtesy of the "Mr" in my own post

Had that been the extent of your entirely uncalled-for rudeness, one might have overlooked it. On the contrary, however, it was the least of it.

[Barbirollians]

Please close this thread FF !!!!