This forum

[isaacs]

I recently read these comments elsewhere on the web aimed at moderators such as myself. It refers to blogging but could equally be relevant to an online forum such as this.

I post them for discussion as I am still open on it. I have made bold what I found most thought provoking. I am considering instituting a policy of deleting deeply insulting or truly juvenile postings. There are not that many here.

"Rule 10: Delete abusive and vexatious commenters without mercy and fanfare. You are the guardian of a public space. If you allow that space to be degraded, only degraded readers will visit. This is one area where the blogosphere has matured during my year of blogging furiously. When I began blogging, a faux-libertarian ideology ruled, holding that no comments should ever be deleted on principle. You might still find the odd old-time blogger doggedly holding to this antediluvian idea. Don't be fooled for a nanosecond. The notion is crap. It has always been crap. Fortunately, it's now widely recognised as crap. Anyone can establish a blog. Freedom of speech has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with your right to delete commenters who clearly have no intention other than to abuse or annoy you or your other commenters. Set your standards. Make them explicit. Don't hesitate to enforce them. Readers will more readily contribute to a discussion if they feel confident they're not going to be insulted or assaulted for their effort. On the other hand, it's unquestionably counter-productive to the aim of attracting readers to frequently delete comments, especially if you delete for purely political reasons, or because you just disagree with the content of the comment. I'm pretty confident that I never deleted more than six or seven commenters, although two or three of these did come back for more punishment... It's up to you. By all means, turn your space into a toilet wall, if you wish. Just know that you don't have to and, most importantly, this is not a route for attracting readers"

[tinky]

Mark I recon your doing well here. Like you said before this is an improvising thread and as such there will be some creative posts. On the most part it seems that there is not much sledging going on, just stupidity which is fun.
As far as censoring language its the 21st century, I think people can handle the odd fuck and cunt here or there.
Perhaps the only problem I see is that you can post using someone elses name that could give the wrong impression. For eg, I'm not convinced that was Ian Chaplin that made a post, may have been, but now we accept it was.

eg; post by Mark Isaacs, "that Tinkler is a terrorist for sure"
Scott Tinkler replies, "I am not, and now you will die!"

[isaacs]

Thanks Scott.

No question of censoring "bad language" automatically. It's not about that sort of puritanism. The only thing that struck a chord with me was the "deeply abusive" thing at the personal level. The idea that more people would post if they didn't think they might get "flamed". There's hardly any of that around here anyway as you say. The other thing was total idiocy. Actually I already deleted a post that was nothing but "TIGER REX" in block letters, 50 times.

Oh well, I'll keep improvising the moderating but thanks for your words of encouragement!

[timothystevens]

For what it's worth, and admittedly it ain't much, I was roundly abused in the course of the thread concerning my review of Jamie Oehlers and Sam Keevers's CD 'Grace.' It astonished me how blatantly some people were prepared to contradict their assertions that I should have been kinder to the album or the musicians under review, with vitriolic and anonymous attacks on myself. It seemed that the recourse to personal attack was a shamefully small-minded manner in which to contest the things I had written - or more particularly, to question my entitlement to write them in the first place. Furthermore, by choosing to make a personal attack rather than an intellectual one they indicated implicitly either that they were unable to find issue with my complaints or that they didn't have the language in which to do it. Or, perhaps, that they hadn't heard the record but were in some other way by honour bound to defend their friends. Mark and one or two others noted these sorts of things at the time. Some of the things people wrote were surprisingly hurtful, but I'm not going to whine about them, and I don't know whether I'd want them to be censored. Anyone who might suggest that by reviewing an album unfavourably I invited such venom is nuts, but what the debate showed us about this scene was sobering, and for that reason the thread was one of the most interesting things to have happened on this site, ever.

All that said, I hesitate to bring it up for fear of starting it all again.

[Kenny]

timothystevens said:

Some of the things people wrote were surprisingly hurtful, but I'm not going to whine about them ...

Tim, perceptions on these sorts of forums are weird.

By declining, perhaps sensibly and as was your right, not to participate in the orginal thread and then chpping in now, it does comes across as whining. Especially when you connect what you considered to be hurrtful comments and not complainging about them in the same sentence.

Like others, I found your review interesting, but the one comment that floored us was a blank dismissal of some aspect of Sam's music as being flawed - "issues which are not unknown elsewhere in Keevers’s tunes" - without any sort of substantiation. Now THAT'S hurtful.

I know you're a keen observer of the music scene, warts and all, so I find it very difficult to believe that you could agree to have a review of that sort posted here and then in any way be surprised by the resulting commotion.

Sorry, man, your post on this thread reads a bit like you're playing the martyr.

[Kenny]

admin said:

Oh well, I'll keep improvising the moderating but thanks for your words of encouragement!

Mark: I agree with Scott - I reckon you're doing a pretty good job.

I think an additional factor here is the really very limited number of people involved - or who would ever want to be involved.

And, yeah, I reckon there's a big difference between stupidity, sledging and outright cruelty. And, as you pointed out yesterday, I've already reserved the right to be stupid.

Sometimes the infantile nature of many posts gets me down, and a few times I've taken offence where none was intended, but overall you're navigating to a pretty cool balance.'

Besides: If you fuck up, we'll tellya!

[timothystevens]

All right Kenny, have it your way. I'm a whining martyr. Bitter and twisted also, and frequently drunk. But you might as well know:

* I am not chipping in to the original thread, and nor am I discussing the specifics of my review (which is what I declined to do in the first place), I am commenting in retrospect on how the conversation was conducted.

* OBVIOUSLY I expected there would be some kind of comment, and probably backlash, to the review itself, but still I was surprised by the infantility of some of it.

* If I could not substantiate my comments, I should not have made them. Only 500 words were allowed for this review, which limited me in how much I could say on any particular point.

* My point here is that no matter what was said, I am disinclined to seek its censorship because it is better to be honest about who we are and what we are doing, if we possibly can.

[Kenny]

timothystevens said:

All right Kenny, have it your way. I'm a whining martyr. Bitter and twisted also, and frequently drunk.

I'm not interested in having "it" my way. I like hanging out on these kinds of forums for the back and forth discourse.

I'm not looking for victory or whatever.

I never said you were any of those things. I DID say it seems that way. There's a difference.

[jimmy]

Yes Mark, interesting thoughts. I respect your open minded-ness and liberal generosity with just letting the threads flow, hoping that some sense will prevail after the silliness. Sometimes I've heard musicians do a similar thing to some of these threads where they'll play choruses (or tunes) of drivel....then suddenly strike gold and get it on! Brainstorming can be so useful. Brainstorming in the public domain though must surely aggravate and confuse some readers, especially when its "no-brain"-storming.

Sometimes I have read back my own rancid, bitter, twisted, snivelling, pathetic, filthy, stupid, immature, puss-y bile a day or two after it was posted in a drooling drunk fit of angst and depression ....and wished that you had censored it!
But you didn't.
And as I look disrespectfully at my own rage against the machine I have an inkling of respect for you for leaving it there.
Curse the day I decided to buy my own computer.
I know, Im not been awefully eloquent or supremely intelligent, but I'm not been rude either. And Im trying to stick to the topic.

[Kyle]

Hmmm,

Timmy!

Kenny!!

Jimmy!!!

Wheres that fattass Cartman?

Kyle: "Looks like we might get one tonight Kenny?"
Kenny: "$%@$%**?!?"
Kyle: "Thats right Kenny....CRITIC FIIIIIIGHT"

[isaacs]

Thanks for such a nice post Jimmy.

[Jimmy]

Well! Your welcome....
Thanks for such a great forum Mark. And another splendid festival in Brisbane. I wish I lived there. Well, for at least 2 days a year now that such a wonderful party is going on.
Must say, I do like the idea of a critic fight.
I know PLENTY of musicians who'd buy tickets to that show,
as long as the drink prices are reasonable.
Yours most truly,
JimmyW

[Vicki HB]

I enjoy this forum. Even the really silly stuff. Thanks Mark for doing all the work for so long! I think sometmes you have to remove posts but rarely thank goodness.

[JK]

Yeah Marky baby, you rock!

[tinky]

Kenny, I dont think Tim sounds like a whinger at all, he's simply stating what went down as I see it. People really got on the defensive and went at Tim harder than they claimed he went in his review. Gotta agree with Tim on this, alot of it was infantile and lacked anything but a poked out tongue.

God this beer taste nice!!!