 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now we're cooking! This has been a good lesson in being clear, since I had never meant to suggest that FSM has any obligation to follow the first amendment to the US constitution.
It's just that the Internet has become the freeest platform for speech (in those countries where it is permitted to be so), and that sets the tone for interactions all over, and influences I think what each of us feels we can say.
Folks are making some good points here, and I especially like the further thinking on negative posts. It's made me realize that if someone says why they don't like a score, I'm more interested than just a negative word or phrase. Like the dissenting views on the merits of Goldsmith's Ghost and Darkness in the announcement thread, which have been measured and nuanced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
My example is negative posts on announcement threads. I've never understood why people come onto a thread celebrating this or that release and then dismiss it, say they'd never buy it, whatever. I don't do that for releases I don't care about - I just avoid the thread. And it seems to cause a lot of fuss that can sometimes derail the celebration.
We are as free to raise an eyebrow as we are to do the happy dance here. It is not rude or morally wrong to do so, whether or not a record producer gets his knickers in a twist as a result. But the comments should add light, rather than just heat, to the discussion. I'm glad Sean is seeing that in his most recent post!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 5, 2015 - 8:14 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Voltaire
(Member)
|
The first amendment applies to government censorship of speech. This is a private board and we are free to set our own rules: no religion or politics, no bootlegs, and no being horrible to each other.
There are endless places online to discuss everything—and only a few to discuss film music. This is one of them, so please keep it civil.
We try to moderate lightly because, speaking for myself, I'm lazy.
The worst we have to deal with are a few people who are by and large knowledgeable members of the community—but with hair-trigger tempers.
Not to mention a few lunatics who we had to ban who persist in trying to sneak back on...
Lukas
You ban people merely because you disagree with their points of view and, to some degree, the language they employ to express it, and then characterize them as "lunatics" to avoid admitting it.
If you'd been even remotely even-handed about it, a couple of people who post consistently unfriendly-to-insulting comments here would have been banned (and branded as "lunatics") long ago -- except that, like you, they also produce soundtrack CD's and are, therefore, part of your exclusive little society apparently exempt from censure or banishment.
And therein lies the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You ban people merely because you disagree with their points of view and, to some degree, the language they employ to express it, and then characterize them as "lunatics" to avoid admitting it.
If you'd been even remotely even-handed about it, a couple of people who post consistently unfriendly-to-insulting comments here would have been banned (and branded as "lunatics") long ago -- except that, like you, they also produce soundtrack CD's and are, therefore, part of your exclusive little society apparently exempt from censure or banishment.
And therein lies the problem.
I think this is an over-generalization, though there is a core of validity to it. Having been here since the onset of the millennium, I've seen many true lunatics banned, then they've snuck back multiple times, and been banned every time. Once they open their mouths, so to speak, their lunacy is once again revealed. Personally, I can't think of any one of them who did not deserve to be banned, most for repeated, blatant and unrepentant violations of board rules. As to the other part, it does rankle, and doesn't seem to fit the model of how all other users of this board are expected to behave. Lukas has made it plain repeatedly that he won't deal with it, however, so we might as well just forget about it and move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Though there will be a rebellion if they ever lock the "Offensive Thread Titles you wouldn't dare post!" thread.
Over my dead body! It's one of the livelier threads 'round here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are as free to raise an eyebrow as we are to do the happy dance here. It is not rude or morally wrong to do so, whether or not a record producer gets his knickers in a twist as a result. But the comments should add light, rather than just heat, to the discussion. I'm glad Sean is seeing that in his most recent post!
It's not that I wasn't seeing it before, it's just that I was focusing narrowly on the kind of one-word post - whether "ordered!" or "pass!" - which again I would never want to ban or forbid or anything, but wish they didn't take up my time and energy when I'm reading a thread. One could argue that it doesn't take much time to read these, of course, but it does sort of drain away my energy as I go through a thread that's got this kind of exchange:
-We're releasing this Watermelon!
-Great!
-Pass!
-Fantastic!
-Who cares!
-Dream Come True!
-Why didn't you release this OTHER watermelon?!
Umm, I do see that this is not exactly a burning free speech issue. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a matter of a free speech zone, as message boards have shown us there are people on one side who show us why we can't have good things, and then a small percentage show want to show us why we can't have anything and keep registering new accounts and attacking the forum. Unfortunately this causes lots of work for those in charge of not only ccleaning things up around here but also keeping the board itself safe to even come to. So a different set of oncsiderations have to be taken into account.
Some people are bi-polar, some people are bi-pony.
Lukas, or whomever made the deicision, wisely decided to ban discussion of politics and religion; I've been to boards where it is allowed and there's one [small] side of the isle that just spew crap from their mouths to their fingers, usually in an angry and insulting manner, usually looking fo the chance to pounce and propagandize. FSM really doesn't need that. You read some of those places, it's where your brain goes to die.
I can't say I necessarily agree with all choices of banned discussion, and all decisions made by the moderator (in recent years I've seen at least three which were total bullshit, but even having said that one unfortunately needed to be done), but piss-poor behavior by a small minority make it a situation where certain things have to be done.
Even if free speech doesn't legally extend to forums, however, doesn't mean that by defacto choice the owner doesn't have to apply it. It's always up to the owner to decide what they do. I will say that in my personal opinion after having used some forums, it appears the more hate and garbage you let people express, the more turmoil that arises and the mroe sever and repeated the attacks to the forum become.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 6, 2015 - 12:10 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
pp312
(Member)
|
If you'd been even remotely even-handed about it, a couple of people who post consistently unfriendly-to-insulting comments here would have been banned (and branded as "lunatics") long ago -- except that, like you, they also produce soundtrack CD's and are, therefore, part of your exclusive little society apparently exempt from censure or banishment.
Though I don't like the attacking tone of this post, there's a grain of truth here. The person alluded to, and named above by Basil Wrathbone, simply doesn't play well with others. Being a member of the industry, he occasionally has some insightful things to say, but finding them requires sifting through torrents of abuse and insult. It's fair to say that every word that issues from the keyboard of this person is either intimidating or just plain unfriendly. There's at least one on every forum, of course, but this one is such a naughty boy I just wonder why he warrants such indulgence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
