Are some topics forbidden in The Diner?

[lisa needs braces]

Yesterday morning I made a thread titled "jackals." I linked to this picture:

I think it's one of the most powerful photos to come out of the I/P conflict.

The thread simply disappeared without any explanation.

[Gurn Blanston]

Forbidden is such a a powerful word, and full of connotations; not unlike "jackals" or "godlessness", don't you think?

In any case, call it what you will, forbidden or whatever, but topics that are intrinsically inflammatory, or those that are presented in a way to make them inflammatory, will be removed. If it is your intention to get people fired up, or to present risque topics in order to shock or titillate, then please do it elsewhere. I understand that one of the other classical music sites is just wild about Zionism discussions, for example.

When Rob created the Diner a few years ago, it was for the purpose of giving a place outside of the music threads for people to discuss non-music things that came up. It was not then, nor was it ever intended to be, an open forum discussion on every topic under the sun. If twincestual gay porn is something of compelling interest to you, I'm betting that you can find better places than a classical music board to satisfy your need to talk about it. Or if you want to stir up anti-Israeli sentiment, or anti anything else sentiment, there are undoubtedly places for that.

This isn't one of them.

Gurn

[lisa needs braces]

Shorter Gurn: "Forbidden is such a powerful word, but yea, a lot of things are forbidden."

Or if you want to stir up anti-Israeli sentiment, or anti anything else sentiment, there are undoubtedly places for that

Are you a Zionist?

[Gurn Blanston]

Shorter Gurn: "Forbidden is such a powerful word, but yea, a lot of things are forbidden."

Are you a Zionist?

l
Yes, quite poetic.

I don't categorize myself like that. I am neither Semitic nor anti-Semitic.

[karlhenning]

When someone is displeased that what he has tried to do is unsuitable, the temptation is strong to try to fan up outrage by use of the word forbidden.

Yawn.

[Josquin des Prez]

Can i see the picture? Its not fair to leave us hanging to internet drama.

[lisa needs braces]

Can i see the picture? Its not fair to leave us hanging to internet drama.

Google "Making the case for Zionism."

[Renfield]

For what it's worth, most large internet forums (especially of the gaming sort, and particularly those based in the US) have blanket no-politics, no-religion, no-sex policies in their off-topic section. Something like internet playground rules.

And though I am personally against the idea of not having one's feathers ruffled de jure, I do agree that topics specifically created to address a specific political, religious or philosophical complaint might be better suited to other outlets.

This includes the tiresome discussions about Obama, socialism, totalitarianism, the existence of God, Jews, and especially moral entitlement that unfailingly do appear in the Diner, and ensure I mostly stay out of it.

[Josquin des Prez]

Google "Making the case for Zionism."

Ho, *that* subject. Have you ever read or listened to anything from Norman Finkelstein? I was very much neutral to this subject until i stumbled upon one of his videos on youtube. Very impressive.

[MN Dave]

Just don't bring up Gurn's exposed banana.

[drogulus]

In any case, call it what you will, forbidden or whatever, but topics that are intrinsically inflammatory, or those that are presented in a way to make them inflammatory, will be removed.
Gurn

     You can avoid this ban in most cases by defying the law of averages and saying something interesting on these subjects which isn't obviously designed merely to inflame or as a personal attack. Most bans proceed from the unwillingness or inability to do this. For the most part the moderators are just acting in accordance with expectations. If you signal that you intend to make a serious point and provoke meaningful discussion you can do that, because it's regularly done. There's plenty of room for controversy, and no need to avoid it if that's what you like.

     

[Gurn Blanston]

     You can avoid this ban in most cases by defying the law of averages and saying something interesting on these subjects which isn't obviously designed merely to inflame or as a personal attack. Most bans proceed from the unwillingness or inability to do this. For the most part the moderators are just acting in accordance with expectations. If you signal that you intend to make a serious point and provoke meaningful discussion you can do that, because it's regularly done. There's plenty of room for controversy, and no need to avoid it if that's what you like.

   

Yes, of course you can. OR, you can say "why don't you take that discussion someplace that's designed to deal with it?". We've tried the first way for several years and frankly it hasn't worked. So now we'll try the other. Nice change of pace. If we had instituted this sort of "much, much lower tolerance" rule a long time ago, many really good members would be here today.

So if there is going to be heat generated by this, go ahead and put it on me. I would actually prefer a new age of controversy elsewhere, but I am quite willing and able to handle some heat.   Meanwhile, a discussion of music would be in order. As though that isn't controversial enough.

[knight66]

Following through to the site from which the photo that prompted this thread was copied, I see there is...yes, a thread on that site giving the opportunity to comment on the photo. So posting it here emerges as ever less appropriate.

Mike

[Scarpia]

Forbidden is such a a powerful word, and full of connotations; not unlike "jackals" or "godlessness", don't you think?

In any case, call it what you will, forbidden or whatever, but topics that are intrinsically inflammatory, or those that are presented in a way to make them inflammatory, will be removed. If it is your intention to get people fired up, or to present risque topics in order to shock or titillate, then please do it elsewhere. I understand that one of the other classical music sites is just wild about Zionism discussions, for example.

When Rob created the Diner a few years ago, it was for the purpose of giving a place outside of the music threads for people to discuss non-music things that came up. It was not then, nor was it ever intended to be, an open forum discussion on every topic under the sun. If twincestual gay porn is something of compelling interest to you, I'm betting that you can find better places than a classical music board to satisfy your need to talk about it. Or if you want to stir up anti-Israeli sentiment, or anti anything else sentiment, there are undoubtedly places for that.

This isn't one of them.

I am strongly in favor of immediately deleting or locking threads that are clearly inflammatory.  I can see the advantage of the "diner" where non-musical discussions can be placed mainly to keep them out of the music boards themselves.  However, it is a trade-off because if things get ugly here the results blow back into the music boards.   

The main thing is to avoid the situation that prevails at a similar board, CMG, where there is a large group of posters who have no obvious interest in classical music and only visit to spew venomous opinions on the off-topic board.

[Gurn Blanston]

I am strongly in favor of immediately deleting or locking threads that are clearly inflammatory.  I can see the advantage of the "diner" where non-musical discussions can be placed mainly to keep them out of the music boards themselves.  However, it is a trade-off because if things get ugly here the results blow back into the music boards.   

The main thing is to avoid the situation that prevails at a similar board, CMG, where there is a large group of posters who have no obvious interest in classical music and only visit to spew venomous opinions on the off-topic board.

Thank you. Our thoughts are congruent.

Following through to the site from which the photo that prompted this thread was copied, I see there is...yes, a thread on that site giving the opportunity to comment on the photo. So posting it here emerges as ever less appropriate.

Mike

Precisely so. It isn't as though people were otherwise muted...



----------------
Now playing:
Tafelmusik / Lamon   Nediger - Bach WF Concerto in D  for Cembalo Strings & BC F 41 1st mvmt

[drogulus]

We've tried the first way for several years and frankly it hasn't worked. So now we'll try the other. Nice change of pace. If we had instituted this sort of "much, much lower tolerance" rule a long time ago, many really good members would be here today.

     Would you describe this as a change of policy or as stricter enforcement of the policy in place?

[knight66]

We have had a rethink over time. For a long period we did the least tinkering with posts that we possibly could and we spent a lot of time behind the scenes remonstrating with certain people who were not really amenable to any but their own agenda.

Reluctantly, we have more recently decided to clamp and delete where there is a clear intent to inflame. As you said earlier on, potentially controversial topics can be discussed, but I don't think that hurling into the pool a rock blatantly about Zionism, for example, will any more be allowed the oxygen of publicity here.

Knight

[Gurn Blanston]

     Would you describe this as a change of policy or as stricter enforcement of the policy in place?

I would say stricter. After all, it has always been policy that we don't discuss topics in a manner that is frankly insulting and/or derogatory to other members. That rule has been given no more than lip service in the name of trying to give some atmosphere of "freedom of speech", which is, of course, not a right but a privilege in a private forum. You could say fairly that there will be less latitude, insofar as moderation could be preemptive rather than ex post facto. Where is the use of moderation when it is applied after the damage is done?

"Oh, well, sorry dude, I didn't know he was such an asshole. If you see this post and can send me an email I would still like to discuss music with you though...  ". 

Really though, it is scarcely a noticeable change. Other than a thread on Twincest porn stars and another anti-Israel screed, you haven't missed a thing. Goggle them up and you can catch the whole deal first hand.



----------------
Now playing:
Tafelmusik / Lamon   Nediger - Bach WF Concerto in D  for Cembalo Strings & BC F 41 3rd mvmt

[drogulus]

      Very sensible. Who could be against that? Besides me, I mean. I think the problem is that dumb and thuggish comment drives out intelligent comment and the downward spiral begins. I like to hang in for awhile and try to make lemonade out of whatever citrussy subject attracts my interest, which is often closely related to the hot-button issues. It stands to reason that there are true and valuable things to say about the very issues that frequently give rise to the worst outbursts of prejudice and malice. That's what's so frustrating about the avoidance of controversy. It's right at the point where there's the most heat that the most light can be shed.

       I once went to a philosophy site to see what kind of discussion prevailed, and it was awful. From my perspective better discussions are had here all the time, devoid for the most part of the jaded quality of "been there, done that". It would have been decidedly uncool to inquire "naively" concerning what might actually be true or even plausible. I understand why this is the case, given these are students leaning how to navigate in a professional environment. Still, it made me homesick for the discussions here (a few of them, anyway).

     

I would say stricter. 

Really though, it is scarcely a noticeable change. Other than a thread on Twincest porn stars and another anti-Israel screed, you haven't missed a thing. Goggle them up and you can catch the whole deal first hand.



----------------
Now playing:
Tafelmusik / Lamon   Nediger - Bach WF Concerto in D  for Cembalo Strings & BC F 41 3rd mvmt

     Goggle is not my friend. But thanks, that's reassuring. And Pot Roast thanks you, too.

[lisa needs braces]

Gee Whiz Gurn. Some of your characterization of my post is making me think that you're motivated by politics in deleting my thread. "Screed"? I want stir up anti-Israel sentiment? These characterizations suggest that you're in some way or another politically invested in this issue.