Politics & Current Affairs board

[MrGongGong]

If things are "limited" to R3 as some suggest , then I guess it's goodbye to many of the more interesting things that one finds here. I fail to understand what the "problem" is ? The internet is like that, it's full of everything, some things you love, some you hate and some you find offensive and so on....... a bit of self awareness is what is required rather than restriction.
When the BBC axed the Archers messageboard the Mustardland one that has replaced it is full of the same characters most of whom will tell you that they don't listen to The Archers anymore BUT are keen on the community that it generated.

And (following Richards post) can I discuss Stockhausen Serves Imperialism ?
Henze ?
Can I discuss this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pkrml ?

and so on ..........

If you don't like to read cyclic arguments about men in frocks or women conductors there's a simple solution
don't read them !

[Mr Pee]

Unusually, I find myself in agreement with Mr.GG, and ahinton!

Much as I admire FF's moderation of these forums, I think that here she has made a very poor decision, one that will greatly diminish these boards. Unless she was receiving a large number of complaints or reports from members about abuse, or other unpleasantness, then I cannot see how this decision can be justified.

As Mr.GG said, nobody was being forced to read the threads concerned. And I do not believe that a bit of knockabout banter, much of which was good-humoured, would deter others from contributing to the musical threads.OK, things occasionally got a bit heated, but then usually calmed down and most threads eventually petered out quite good humouredly. Compared to many forums out there, this one is a model of civility and good manners, even at its most heated.

Inevitably, with any forum such as this, there will be some threads that individuals find repetitive, or annoying, but it is the nature of the beast. If you don't like it, don't read it, and stick to the non-political parts of the forum, although as Richard Barrett and Mr GG have pointed out, where that line should be drawn is a moot point. What about a politically charged Opera production, for example? Or an anti- Israeli Speech by Daniel Barenboim, or Nigel Kennedy? Or Petrenko's recent remarks about women conductors?

I think this ill-judged move may cause as many problems as it sets out to solve, as well as disappointing many regular contributors.

[jean]

Examples could be cited . . .

Cite them, then!

Every MB I've ever had sight of, however wide its catchment area, always ran into the same problem - that a few posters post a lot, and a very large number of members don't post at all.

And the same solutions are proposed - for the moderators to remove or edit posts considered abusive, or to restrict the topics that can be posted on to those considered unlikely to provoke abuse.

For myself, I think the chatty, friendly exchanges that give the impression that the posters know each other well are just as likely to give the impression of a closed group and put new posters off - though it should be added that every time a new name is spotted putting its head above the parapet, someone will welcome it warmly.

[Hornspieler]

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?

An interesting suggestion!

If one looks at the foot of the main forum page, the number of people listed as members viewing is far fewer than the number of non-members ("Guests") viewing the posts. Take the number of members listed as signed in who have actually contributed to topics over the past week and the discrepancy is even greater.

Would a complete review of the current situation be a useful exercise during these less active periods?

HS

[Pabmusic]

To paraphrase Gerontius (sorry, Mr GG) "I went to sleep and now I am perplexed". Of course, I have no idea whether there have been many complaints, but I saw nothing particularly wrong with the hidden thread. A bit boring at times and very repetitive, but I didn't detect any venom. This contrasts with another thread which contained a personal attack on another poster, about which I complained, but without any response at all.

It's a shame this has been done.

[ahinton]

Unusually, I find myself in agreement with Mr.GG, and ahinton!

Much as I admire FF's moderation of these forums, I think that here she has made a very poor decision, one that will greatly diminish these boards. Unless she was receiving a large number of complaints or reports from members about abuse, or other unpleasantness, then I cannot see how this decision can be justified.

As Mr.GG said, nobody was being forced to read the threads concerned. And I do not believe that a bit of knockabout banter, much of which was good-humoured, would deter others from contributing to the musical threads.OK, things occasionally got a bit heated, but then usually calmed down and most threads eventually petered out quite good humouredly. Compared to many forums out there, this one is a model of civility and good manners, even at its most heated.

Inevitably, with any forum such as this, there will be some threads that individuals find repetitive, or annoying, but it is the nature of the beast. If you don't like it, don't read it, and stick to the non-political parts of the forum, although as Richard Barrett and Mr GG have pointed out, where that line should be drawn is a moot point. What about a politically charged Opera production, for example? Or an anti- Israeli Speech by Daniel Barenboim, or Nigel Kennedy? Or Petrenko's recent remarks about women conductors?

I think this ill-judged move may cause as many problems as it sets out to solve, as well as disappointing many regular contributors.

That a number of valid points about this have been made by contributors who might not otherwise necessarily be expected to agree with one another on other issues seems to me to illustrate that we're addressing a fundamental concern here. The examples cited by Messrs GG and Pee clearly illustrate the problem as to where any line could realistically be drawn and how it would be possible to define certain subjects as falling on only one side of it; even Sarah Teather is a soprano! The more one looks at this the more obvious it becomes that how to draw that line and where is very difficult. Not only that, though, it would be an unwelcome outcome of this decision if an impression were to be given that those interested in music, its performance/broadcasting/recording, music scholarship, Radio 3 et al are somehow not - and/or not expected to be - interested in or concerned about matters other than music to the point of wanting to raise questions and to discuss and share ideas in as open a forum as remains available to members here for the discussion of those music-oriented topics; it would be especially unwelcome (not to say unwelcoming) to new members, I think.

[eighthobstruction]

Bump....Politics and Current Affairs Board now found at http://www.for3.org/forums/forumdisp...urrent-Affairs

[Pabmusic]

...For myself, I think the chatty, friendly exchanges that give the impression that the posters know each other well are just as likely to give the impression of a closed group and put new posters off - though it should be added that every time a new name is spotted putting its head above the parapet, someone will welcome it warmly.

Exactly, Jean. Surely we all write slight caricatures from time to time. I enjoy (for instance) my occasional exchanges with Scottycelt (are you listening, Scotty?) but I'm sure neither of us thinks that he'll change the other's mind. But it's entertaining, thoughtful and respectful. If we were limited to musical matters, I'm not sure we'd talk much (I have to admit that, try as I might, I just don't like Bruckner enough!).

[Sir Velo]

Exactly, Jean. Surely we all write slight caricatures from time to time. I enjoy (for instance) my occasional exchanges with Scottycelt (are you listening, Scotty?)

You might but, with all due respect, these exchanges are a turn-off for many others.

As I said, some posters may find they post less, others may well be encouraged to post here more often.

[jean]

...I enjoy (for instance) my occasional exchanges with Scottycelt (are you listening, Scotty?) but I'm sure neither of us thinks that he'll change the other's mind. But it's entertaining, thoughtful and respectful...

But my point was that the very friendliness of the exchange may put an infrequent poster off from posting, as though by doing so they'd be intruding on a private conversation.

As to Bruckner - I'm very interested in the opinions of those that know more about him than I do, or have comments to make more perceptive than I could manage.

[Pabmusic]

But my point was that the very friendliness of the exchange may put an infrequent poster off from posting, as though by doing so they'd be intruding on a private conversation.

I can't disagree, but what else would one want - clinical exchanges?

[Sydney Grew]

Cite them, then! [sc. examples] . . .

Sorry but I have undertaken not to mention it (the principal example) here. All I can perhaps say is that a) it is a musical forum, and b) literally many months go by without any moderatorial action being required. I think the reasons for that are a) the fact that every one has a great interest in the subjects (obscure composers) being discussed - in contrast to the present forum where the Radio Three programmes are no longer all that interesting, and thus do not give people much to write about with enthusiasm; and b) my wonderful five or six "house rules" which make quite clear the unwelcome consequences of any transgression. Strong disagreements are often expressed - e.g. some such as I think Delius supreme, others the opposite - but it is invariably done in a jovial and not unpleasant way. The membership have a strong sense of freedom but it is a necessarily restricted freedom. (Which may indicate that the word "freedom" does not in fact correspond to any possible reality.)

[amateur51]

French frank will know but I suspect that the total number of members includes several (many?) that are spoofs. Some will also be people who just read and don't respond. Others will be people who have been put off in some way that we obviously cannot ascertain. so I think it's barking up the wrong tree to say 'there are lots of members who don't contribute therefore something is wrong and therefore it's the political posts'. There is very little evidence for this.

But it's french frank's Board and she will do what she will do.

And right now I suspect she may be getting ready for the rather more important circus about to take place in Westminster that may determine the future of the BBC Trust.

[jean]

I can't disagree, but what else would one want - clinical exchanges?

No I wouldn't want that. I wouldn't want the use of you to be banned, as Syd suggests nor all our posts to aspire to the status of objective reports. But perhaps there should not be too much personal history in such exchanges?

Perhaps ahinton's agreeing with Mr Pee would be more welcoming to comments by other people if neither of them reflected on how rare such agreement was?

[amateur51]

You might but, with all due respect, these exchanges are a turn-off for many others.

As I said, some posters may find they post less, others may well be encouraged to post here more often.

Do we have any evidence that people are put off? Surely as adults you post where/what you want, irrespective of what's going on elsewhere.

I don't visit the Choir threads very often because I'm not interested in what is discussed there. Therefore I don't see the strife that occurs there and thus I'm not put off.