Forum Decorum

[Con Murphy]

I kind of agree with June, it's too much like washing the forum's dirty linen in public, and as onerous and time-consuming a task as it must be at times, I still think the only solution is for you to continue to referee the board as you see fit, Charlie.

You're a reasonable person - more reasonable than most of the rest of us, certainly - so why not just apply a simple rule: no ad hominem attacks (or to maintain the sporting metaphor, play the ball not the wo/man). Any posts that you feel breach that rule should be edited by the poster to take the personal stuff out, or failing that they will be removed completely by yourself. Anybody who posts here does so as your guest, and therefore must respect your decision as to where the line is drawn.

Naturally, some discretion might be expected, eg little digs between two long-serving world music magazine journalists/editors could be seen as less serious than anything that might happen between two complete strangers. The onus, therefore, will be on us posters to think carefully about the way we frame our responses to each other and to try to exercise some restraint if a thread or poster is winding us up.

(Zee, I'm not sure whether this type of board allows an Ignore Thread or Ignore Poster option? Might be worth switching that on, so that members can exercise it anonymously when they find their blood pressure rising. )

[ritchie]

I'm with June on this one ....,

On another forum I frequent JC (John Colter, just to avoid any confusion) stated

Is it just me? Whenever my eyes fall on the words "Forum Rules", I think, "Yeah. Damn right it does"?

Self policing is the best idea ... followed by a quote or two of Mark Twain..... or in some cases perhaps Homer Simpson.

[Jamie Renton]

Which brings me to another point. I've been told that some of my private messages have been passed around between members, and I hope we can all agree that this is not how private messages should work. It's like we're being unwittingly wire-tapped.

Now you know how Avon Barksdale must have felt :-)

[That Was Jonathan E. Then]

Bad referee, bad call, bad game — I'm not waiting my three days. I'm off. Perhaps I'll explain my decision in more detail later and, if you're lucky, present an extremely satirical impression of flouncing.

Wait! Let's do the math quickly.

Out: Adam, Judith, Nikki, Norman, and now me.

In: Des.

Nice work if you can get it.

Yes, I'm angry and very, very disappointed in how this went down. It is a strong argument for NEVER using PMs to attempt to resolve anything. I never have liked them. I believe things should be done out in the open where all can see and have equal access to information. Sunshine is the best disinfectant — now you have a festering sore.

[Gordon Neill]

I don't think the maths is that simple. I suspect that many/most/all of the recent departees will return at some point. I hope so. But that's up to them. I dare say they will have a variety of reasons for their decisions which won't fit conveniently into a single point of view.

And, having considered, the comments of June and Con, I've changed my mind on the benefits of continuing to air disagreements in a Forum Decorum section (I think the section could be useful, but not for this). People should be expected to police their own actions. If they can't, a quick PM from Charlie (or other members) should ask them to consider retracting abusive comments. If they won't, then the comments should be removed anyway. If they persist, then the individual should be removed. All this should be done quickly and quietly. It's not a spectator sport.

Rather than rake over the past, I would have thought it was better to focus on the future and for everyone to play to the whistle. The refs. is in the best position to know all the information. He's made a decision. That's all I need to know.

[Nigel w]

I hope you don't mean that, Jonathan. I've enjoyed your contributions to this forum (and your private messages to me, also!). Please don't go - but please also let Charlie resolve matters in the best way he thinks fit. He's a wily old diplomat on the quiet, believe me...

Charlie wrote:

The particular point I am hoping to get across is that if anybody feels that somebody else is out of order in their language or attitude, the complaint should be registered in the Forum Decorum section, rather than as an angry and probably inflamatory 'reply' to the offending post.

At the risk of falling into that dangerous habit of seeing both sides of an argument, I'm now beginning to have second thoughts about how this would work. It seemed sensible and logical, but I now take the points made by June, Con and others : it might just be inviting trouble to have some sort of official 'sin bin' where we can all complain and whinge about each other. To continue the sporting analogy used by others, might it not be an invitation to people to dive under a perfectly fair tackle in the hope of winning an undeserved penalty?

I don't know and I don't really have a better idea. Unless it's an area called trolls and piranhas, where we can put the piranhas in a digital ducking stool like the witches of old and put the trolls in a virtual version of the old village stocks and throw on-line rotten fruit (emoticons, probably) at them...

[Charlie]

Or to reach a mutual agreement, as Des and Nikki have sensibly done (in private!).

In trying to be concise, I have been misleading. There has been no communication off-air between Nikki & Des, but between each of them and myself, separately. Nikki is still not intending to come back, and I'm not sure the clock could ever be turned back to enable that to happen. So there didn't seem much point in keeping Des off the field of play to clear it for somebody else to come back on who wasn't intending to (for reasons unrelated to this particular exchange). You see how complicated it gets....

I would suggest, rather than doing the online equivalent of sending someone 'into the corner', like unruly schoolchildren, that a brief PM be sent to them instead. After all, the last thing we want to see on here is anyone being publicly humiliated.

June

Very valid, but this assumes and requires me to be (a) an all-seeing eye and (b) always correct in my judgment.

(a) I do not follow every twist and turn of every thread as they occur, and sometimes people need to draw attention to unseemly behaviour.

(b) I still welcome your input, collectively and, in this case, individually - June, you have made more than once made welcome interventions by acting as an assistant referee or as the fourth official, not sure which anolagy applies.

[Tom McPhillips]

Profundity Alert!!!


Teacups have the worst storms





so be careful whom you steep with....

[Ian M]

Please! Can we have an end to the bloodletting and recriminations. Des has apologised to Nikki in public, so could we please allow that to be a full stop on the whole matter. I propose a moratorium on the whole issue - no further discussion of who said what, who was at fault, what who should do etc etc (ad nauseam), and no referring to it. I am sure Charlie's head is spinning with all of these PMs flying about (none of which I am party to) and the lingering fall out here.

Let's call this, in the best spirit of punk, Year Zero. Whatever happened is now gone and eradicated from the collective memory of this forum. From tomorrow everybody, especially including all those who have disappeared, has a clean slate and will only be responsible for their future behaviour. No looking back.

In future, we should have a simple set of rules for the benefit of all. They should be only what you would expect if Charlie asked you round and you sat in his kitchen while various others came and wet, chatting about music and their various enthusiasms. Some you know, many you know a little, most of them not at all. Your behaviour there shouldn't be any different from here. That is to say, you would expect to be civil and courteous, tolerant of a wide variety of opinions, and respect those you might disagree with. Inappropriate behaviour not tolerated would be swearing, innuendo, insults or personal attacks. Any member feeling subject to inappropriate behaviour should refer the offender to this simple set of rules giving them the opportunity to withdraw their remark, or refer it to Charlie, who can delete the post or the thread; what they should not do is reply in kind, as this generates a chain reaction where others get involved and it escalates out of control.

So if we could agree to that, we can move on. I don't expect all those who have left will immediately come back, but if we can get back to normal, with the added safety valve of some simple guidelines, then they are more likely to return in their own time, seeing a lively and enjoyable place to be (once again). But please, enough of the endless wallowing in self-recrimination. Let's get back to the music and the banter. Whaddya say?

[Dayna]

I whole heartedly agree with Ian!

I feel so numb...

[Tom McPhillips]

You would expect to be civil and courteous, tolerant of a wide variety of opinions, and respect those you might disagree with. Inappropriate behaviour not tolerated would be swearing, innuendo, insults or personal attacks. Any member feeling subject to inappropriate behaviour should refer the offender to this simple set of rules giving them the opportunity to withdraw their remark, or refer it to Charlie, who can delete the post or the thread; what they should not do is reply in kind, as this generates a chain reaction where others get involved and it escalates out of control.

Ian, that puts it in a nutshell! Why not put that prominently in the Forum Decorum, and refer newcomers there, to read before they post - it says everything so well.

[Ted]

Whaddya say?

You and me. Outside. Now.