Politics & Current Affairs board

[Mr Pee]

I think that it is a bit TOO radical....the way it looks as though it is going to be set ONLY blaa x number of people will know it exists....and no new people will see it....Many of the (lets say 100#)people who are involved at some time over a year in (EVIL) political and current affairs exchanges will mostly not be able to find it ( as is the case when ff says "it has been moved to the Diversion dungeon"....no bugger including me knows where that is....Cannot a Diversions Forum be on the Main Forum page so that people do not have go searching for it or KNOW THE SPECIAL PASSWORD.... (at the very very very very bottom)BUT not be on the What's New....

Petruska's <<<This seems fine to me and, in truth, was becoming increasingly inevitable. Now that their posts will not be visible to a wider audience my guess is that political/current affairs 'debate' will cease.>>> WELL of course....it is basically ****ed....these debates may end or carry on with 4-5 people but they often (regularly)start with many more for the first 50 posts.....

I think 20% of the board members have been sold down the river....

Well said, eightobstruction. I have never found the diversions forum.

Don't get me wrong, I think FF does a superb job of moderation here, but I think sending all political debate to the dungeons is unnecessarily heavy-handed.

The debates on these boards are, I think, remarkably good-humoured and entertaining 90% of the time. Just take a look at some of the other forums out there.......

[french frank]

I think that it is a bit TOO radical....the way it looks as though it is going to be set ONLY blaa x number of people will know it exists....and no new people will see it....Many of the (lets say 100#)people who are involved at some time over a year in (EVIL) political and current affairs exchanges will mostly not be able to find it ( as is the case when ff says "it has been moved to the Diversion dungeon"....no bugger including me knows where that is....Cannot a Diversions Forum be on the Main Forum page so that people do not have go searching for it or KNOW THE SPECIAL PASSWORD.... (at the very very very very bottom)BUT not be on the What's New....

Petruska's <<<This seems fine to me and, in truth, was becoming increasingly inevitable. Now that their posts will not be visible to a wider audience my guess is that political/current affairs 'debate' will cease.>>> WELL of course....it is basically ****ed....these debates may end or carry on with 4-5 people but they often (regularly)start with many more for the first 50 posts.....

All understood. But the major point is that, in line with many other forums which have a specific focus of interest, political topics are disallowed because they just create trouble.

Weird though it is, once a particular set of people get going on a topic, they'll argue with their opponents, no matter what it's about. I could see a sign on the Proms concerts thread. X makes a comment and up pops Y to make a sarcastic response. I don't see why we should host that kind of thing just because it amuses a tiny group of people. Not only that but the same set of topics came up again and again - no matter how the thread started - and went round in the usual circles. The purpose of disabling the smileys was that I thought that would discourage people from being smart alecs and they'd debate seriously.

[french frank]

For a start THOMPSON v Patten is on P&CA Forum....is that really topic for " a 'light-hearted social board' for varied topic[s]".

Self-denying ordinance (though I didn't start that thread) - I took the debate over to the FoR3 Facebook page and am happy to do that with BBC 'politics'.

Whether these discussions are 'entertaining' or not is a moot point. Some of them irritate the pants off me, and I have to read them to stop murder being committed.

Apart from anything else, the forum is run by Friends of Radio 3. About 10% of the members here are FoR supporters: the other 90% either don't support us or haven't wanted to join, and if they behave like hooligans it reflects on us.

[eighthobstruction]

yes ....you know i know all that ff....and i always try to support you....

[Petrushka]

I thought it was pretty clear Pet was suggesting that without an audience, beyond the 7 or 8 'regulars', the desire to engage in endless tit-for-tat rhetoric might diminish...

Quite so.

[Flosshilde]

I thought it was pretty clear Pet was suggesting that without an audience, beyond the 7 or 8 'regulars', the desire to engage in endless tit-for-tat rhetoric might diminish...

That might be 'quite so' but it doesn't diminish the thrust (if I might put it that way) of my comment - if a discussion is public then of course one expects that other people will see it; if one doesn't want other people to see the discussion then it should be carried out in private.

[Richard Barrett]

in line with many other forums which have a specific focus of interest, political topics are disallowed because they just create trouble.

That in itself is really a politically-charged statement because it assumes that there's a hard and fast separation between what's political and what isn't. Well, so be it, it's your forum and embodies your priorities and I've had my say on this kind of subject before.

[Mr Pee]

So how does the "Ideas and Theory" board fit into this new regime?

Forum: Ideas & theory
"Political, ethical, religious, scientific, musical, artistic discussion"

Will that also be moved to the underworld if it gets a bit heated? And since that forum existed already, why was it necessary to create this short-lived Politics and Current affairs board?

[french frank]

So how does the "Ideas and Theory" board fit into this new regime?

That was considered. My view of that forum was that it wasn't about personal opinions. A theoretical discussion about what, for example, Marxism is about shouldn't simply descend into whether anyone agrees with it or not or how stupid people are.

And since that forum existed already, why was it necessary to create this short-lived Politics and Current affairs board?

Mainly because it wasn't intended to deal with current affairs. Political theory doesn't include whether we should bomb Syria or whether Sarah Teather was a good politician or a bad one. That being so, it didn't get much discussion presumably because there was less opportunity to squabble.

That in itself is really a politically-charged statement because it assumes that there's a hard and fast separation between what's political and what isn't. Well, so be it, it's your forum and embodies your priorities and I've had my say on this kind of subject before.

FoR3's priorities are connected with Radio 3. It doesn't seem unreasonable to focus more closely on that rather than repetitive, rude, ill-natured, childish taunting which seems to accompany any discussion on which people hold differing views.

The url of the forum is now http://www.for3.org/forums/forumdisp...urrent-Affairs

[Barbirollians]

All power to your elbow !

[aeolium]

One potential problem with re-orientating the forum towards discussions about R3 programmes is that there does not seem to be great interest in them, possibly because fewer members are listening to R3 on a regular basis. At least outside the Proms season, the overwhelming majority of threads throughout the forum - and excluding all the political discussions - are not related to any R3 programme. Building a Library is perhaps the only programme that gets any sustained level of interest and there is very little interest in non-musical arts programmes, whether on R3 or anywhere else. The long-running threads on the Playlists board about the Breakfast programme and Essential Classics seem to me to be little more than a repetition of complaints about the styles of those programmes even though those styles have been established for years now and there is no sign of change. So perhaps the forum will become mainly the focus of discussions about people's private listening habits away from R3, CDs (especially bargains) and social matters. If there isn't much appetite for discussing R3 programmes (probably also little appetite for listening to them), then should it be the aim of the forum to focus on them?

[french frank]

If there isn't much appetite for discussing R3 programmes (probably also little appetite for listening to them), then should it be the aim of the forum to focus on them?

And there doesn't seem to be much sign here of the arrival of the new audiences who are supposed to be enjoying the new style of programme (nor much sign on the R3 Facebook page either). Perhaps they just don't dare to say they enjoy it all, or creep quietly away when they see all the grumping?

Specially good programmes are mentioned now and again which seems to persuade people to listen, but if Radio 3's aim has been to get rid of the older, more critical/demanding audience to make way for the new generation of listeners, I imagine they've been quite successful. But we do still have the enthusiasms which we share.

[Sydney Grew]

. . . repetitive, rude, ill-natured, childish taunting . . .

Actually in my experience there is a much easier way to deal with problems of this pestilent (and may I say very British) kind:

1) Create a rule to the effect that "reflections upon other members will be instantly zapped."

2) Ban the use of the words "you" and "your."

It does work! Sweetness and light will be restored before you know it. Examples could be cited . . .

[ahinton]

Actually in my experience there is a much easier way to deal with problems of this pestilent (and may I say very British) kind:

1) Create a rule to the effect that "reflections upon other members will be instantly zapped."

2) Ban the use of the words "you" and "your."

Yes to 1) but no to 2); I can see why you suggest 2) but it seems to me to be far less practical and potentially effective in its application than 1).

As it happens, I agree with Richard Barrett here who has wisely raised the quedstion of what is considered political and what not. I also agree with Mr Pee's stance on this. This must be an historic moment - for me to agree with Richard Barrett AND Mr Pee - so something must be of unusual importance here!

I understand why the decision's been made but at the same time regret it.

[Sir Velo]

One potential problem with re-orientating the forum towards discussions about R3 programmes is that there does not seem to be great interest in them, possibly because fewer members are listening to R3 on a regular basis. At least outside the Proms season, the overwhelming majority of threads throughout the forum - and excluding all the political discussions - are not related to any R3 programme. Building a Library is perhaps the only programme that gets any sustained level of interest and there is very little interest in non-musical arts programmes, whether on R3 or anywhere else.

If one looks at the number of members of this forum (over 1,000) and then the number who are actually posting (perhaps 200 or so) on a regular basis, it may well be that those who wish to comment on Radio 3's output feel driven away precisely because of all the bickering about non musical and non Radio 3 subjects.

One suggestion would be to PM all members (including those not currently posting) to canvas their opinions. Limit threads to Radio 3 programme and musically related subjects, delete personally abusive posts, and see what happens. It may well be that we will see very different names appearing on the threads than some of those who currently predominate, but would that necessarily be a bad thing?