Author Topic: Consider banning politics  (Read 41692 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Florestan

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 22362
  • Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #160 on: June 15, 2020, 12:15:38 PM »
:P Indeed, but these are composers whose lives have been shaped by their political environment or by sheer avoidance of it, but this doesn’t mean launch into a tirade against Communism.

Communism is (happily) a thing of the past. Don't get me started on contemporary composers whose music is a tirade against Capitalism.  :D

Rant over. For good.
"Melody is the essence of music." - Mozart

"Believe nothing you hear, and only one-half that you see." - Edgar Allan Poe

Offline SimonNZ

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 9264
  • Location: Christchurch, NZ
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #161 on: June 15, 2020, 12:54:37 PM »
I mean it just doesn’t make any sense to have political discussions on a music forum. I mean if the forum was called ‘Good Music And Politics Guide’ then I’d have no reason for an argument, but it’s not. There are many political forums out there. If one feels the nagging need to talk politics, then go to one of those forums.

Nor is it called "Good Music And [that Diner thread you like that has nothing to do with music]"

Don't know if you've ever looked at an actual political forum, but they're all troll-farm trolls, bot spam, fourteen year olds pretending to be forty year olds and loudest-voice-wins party-as-sports-team fanatics. If you actually want to discuss politics you'd go anywhere except there.

Offline Madiel

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 10734
    • A musical diary
  • Location: Canberra, Australia
  • Currently Listening to:
    Whatever's listed in my blog.
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #162 on: June 15, 2020, 01:33:46 PM »
If that's the case, they are abusing their power and not following forum policies. I'd like to know if that is the case (that they actually deleted your post) and what it contained before I start a pretty serious string of posts...

This is how you started, wanting to know about the content of the post.

Since then you’ve switched to saying it’s got nothing to do with the particular post and basically arguing with moderators that you’re a better lawyer about forum policies than they are... possibly because the text on forum policy hasn’t been updated to your liking?

The moderators simply aren’t answerable to you in this way. They’re not your elected representatives. The other stuff you’re referring to is not a constitution that you can haul the moderators off for breaching.

The new US thread has a stipulated policy. That policy has arisen for specific reasons. Whether that policy is consistent with something else, which you’ve been arguing about quite nastily, is not only something that I’m not sure you’re accurate about it’s also not something that is NEARLY as relevant as you suppose unless you can somehow get the site owner to agree with you that it’s relevant. In which case the site owner can just go ahead and modify the overall forum policy to negate your complaint.

You’re acting as if the moderators are acting on some random whim outside their statutory powers. What statute????

Even in my crankiest moments against moderator behaviour (and yes I’ve been seriously cranky) it’s been on the basis of what I’ve personally thought should be done. Not on the basis of invoking some idea that the moderators are restrained by a written document that I claim to interpret better than the moderators, and claim renders something ELSE the moderators have written about the specific situation to somehow be null and void.

In other words I’m generally against deletion. But I simply cannot see a way of being against deletion on a thread that SPECIFICALLY says deletion is actively contemplated. Those are the terms of engagement on that thread.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2020, 01:40:24 PM by Madiel »
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

Offline Mirror Image

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 58272
  • Dmitri Shostakovich (1906 - 1975)
  • Location: Northeast GA, US
  • Currently Listening to:
    Mostly Austro-Germanic and Soviet/Russian repertoire
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #163 on: June 15, 2020, 01:46:25 PM »
Communism is (happily) a thing of the past. Don't get me started on contemporary composers whose music is a tirade against Capitalism.  :D

Rant over. For good.

 ;D
"When a man is in despair, it means that he still believes in something." - Dmitri Shostakovich

Offline Mirror Image

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 58272
  • Dmitri Shostakovich (1906 - 1975)
  • Location: Northeast GA, US
  • Currently Listening to:
    Mostly Austro-Germanic and Soviet/Russian repertoire
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #164 on: June 15, 2020, 03:30:36 PM »
Nor is it called "Good Music And [that Diner thread you like that has nothing to do with music]"

Don't know if you've ever looked at an actual political forum, but they're all troll-farm trolls, bot spam, fourteen year olds pretending to be forty year olds and loudest-voice-wins party-as-sports-team fanatics. If you actually want to discuss politics you'd go anywhere except there.

It is quite true that I’ve participated in some non-musical topics in ‘The Diner’, but what’s also true is none of these topics have wanted to make me leave the forum because of a disagreement I had on a political thread. It does seem that these guidelines are causing more and more members to either 1. be confused or 2. just downright unhappy and even more argumentative. The ongoing argument here between mc ukrneal and Que being a case in point.
"When a man is in despair, it means that he still believes in something." - Dmitri Shostakovich

Offline mc ukrneal

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 9138
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #165 on: June 15, 2020, 04:15:35 PM »
This is how you started, wanting to know about the content of the post.

Since then you’ve switched to saying it’s got nothing to do with the particular post and basically arguing with moderators that you’re a better lawyer about forum policies than they are... possibly because the text on forum policy hasn’t been updated to your liking?

The moderators simply aren’t answerable to you in this way. They’re not your elected representatives. The other stuff you’re referring to is not a constitution that you can haul the moderators off for breaching.

The new US thread has a stipulated policy. That policy has arisen for specific reasons. Whether that policy is consistent with something else, which you’ve been arguing about quite nastily, is not only something that I’m not sure you’re accurate about it’s also not something that is NEARLY as relevant as you suppose unless you can somehow get the site owner to agree with you that it’s relevant. In which case the site owner can just go ahead and modify the overall forum policy to negate your complaint.

You’re acting as if the moderators are acting on some random whim outside their statutory powers. What statute????

Even in my crankiest moments against moderator behaviour (and yes I’ve been seriously cranky) it’s been on the basis of what I’ve personally thought should be done. Not on the basis of invoking some idea that the moderators are restrained by a written document that I claim to interpret better than the moderators, and claim renders something ELSE the moderators have written about the specific situation to somehow be null and void.

In other words I’m generally against deletion. But I simply cannot see a way of being against deletion on a thread that SPECIFICALLY says deletion is actively contemplated. Those are the terms of engagement on that thread.
It might not matter to you, but at least one of my posts was deleted (the one where I responded to Karl immediately after responding to Gurn, so quite early in the discussion) where I specifically referenced my reply #30 from earlier in the other thread. Perhaps seeing that would have made it clearer I was always arguing as a follow up to that post, which if you were to read all the way through to now would be quite consistent in this regard. I still have no idea what Greg posted really, but he implied they had deleted a link, the very thing I am against. So for me, it was simply a starting off point. As you can see in my posts, I never referenced Greg's post again unless it was brought up by someone else.


 
Be kind to your fellow posters!!

Offline Madiel

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 10734
    • A musical diary
  • Location: Canberra, Australia
  • Currently Listening to:
    Whatever's listed in my blog.
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #166 on: June 15, 2020, 04:35:56 PM »
It might not matter to you, but at least one of my posts was deleted (the one where I responded to Karl immediately after responding to Gurn, so quite early in the discussion) where I specifically referenced my reply #30 from earlier in the other thread. Perhaps seeing that would have made it clearer I was always arguing as a follow up to that post, which if you were to read all the way through to now would be quite consistent in this regard. I still have no idea what Greg posted really, but he implied they had deleted a link, the very thing I am against. So for me, it was simply a starting off point. As you can see in my posts, I never referenced Greg's post again unless it was brought up by someone else.

Nevertheless, my main point is that your notion that there is some overarching "forum policy" that the specific, stated USA Politics thread policy has to comply with is misconceived.

The fact that there isn't a "forum policy" saying not to have loads of links in posts is irrelevant. There certainly isn't a forum policy actively ENCOURAGING lots of links either. Now, there is a specific policy just about USA Politics. And the sensible place to post that policy? Right where the moderators posted it.

You seem to believe that the only way the policy goal can be achieved is to go and amend the forum-wide policies. What would that policy say, though? It would say "here are the specific rules for USA politics (because we haven't felt the need to implement a similar policy on any other topic, given that other topics haven't faced the same problems)". There seems very little point in jumping up and down and demanding that the moderators achieve a FORM to your liking when the SUBSTANCE would end up being exactly the same.

You're also running the argument that moderators can't set policies. This appears to be an argument from silence rather than based on the Forum Guidelines explicitly saying that Moderators Can't Set Policies. In fact, ALL of your arguments seem to be based on the Forum Guidelines post being some kind of constitutional document about powers. It's not.

But if you want it to be amended to say specific things about US politics, I'm sure it can be. The question is why you think this would make any difference to how US politics discussion is now regulated.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2020, 04:40:59 PM by Madiel »
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

Offline mc ukrneal

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 9138
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #167 on: June 16, 2020, 02:53:36 AM »
Nevertheless, my main point is that your notion that there is some overarching "forum policy" that the specific, stated USA Politics thread policy has to comply with is misconceived.

The fact that there isn't a "forum policy" saying not to have loads of links in posts is irrelevant. There certainly isn't a forum policy actively ENCOURAGING lots of links either. Now, there is a specific policy just about USA Politics. And the sensible place to post that policy? Right where the moderators posted it.

You seem to believe that the only way the policy goal can be achieved is to go and amend the forum-wide policies. What would that policy say, though? It would say "here are the specific rules for USA politics (because we haven't felt the need to implement a similar policy on any other topic, given that other topics haven't faced the same problems)". There seems very little point in jumping up and down and demanding that the moderators achieve a FORM to your liking when the SUBSTANCE would end up being exactly the same.

You're also running the argument that moderators can't set policies. This appears to be an argument from silence rather than based on the Forum Guidelines explicitly saying that Moderators Can't Set Policies. In fact, ALL of your arguments seem to be based on the Forum Guidelines post being some kind of constitutional document about powers. It's not.

But if you want it to be amended to say specific things about US politics, I'm sure it can be. The question is why you think this would make any difference to how US politics discussion is now regulated.
I don't think it makes sense to have policies set in different areas. It makes things confusing. Right now, it would be one thread, but who's to say it wouldn't expand. I think it's much easier to have it all in one place. I also think it's inconsistent. A post in one thread is fine, but the same type of post in another is not? That doesn't make any sense to me. That's why I would delete the idea of deleting links without text completely.

I also think that giving the moderators the power to delete questionable posts based entirely on their whim without some sort of backing to what that might entail is problematic to say the least. It means their interpretation of everything is what is important, not the rules set out for all to follow. TO be clear, I am not accusing anybody of anything. But it does make these sorts of... questionable....actions all too easy.

Be kind to your fellow posters!!

Offline Mirror Image

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 58272
  • Dmitri Shostakovich (1906 - 1975)
  • Location: Northeast GA, US
  • Currently Listening to:
    Mostly Austro-Germanic and Soviet/Russian repertoire
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #168 on: June 16, 2020, 06:06:20 AM »
I don't think it makes sense to have policies set in different areas. It makes things confusing. Right now, it would be one thread, but who's to say it wouldn't expand. I think it's much easier to have it all in one place. I also think it's inconsistent. A post in one thread is fine, but the same type of post in another is not? That doesn't make any sense to me. That's why I would delete the idea of deleting links without text completely.

I also think that giving the moderators the power to delete questionable posts based entirely on their whim without some sort of backing to what that might entail is problematic to say the least. It means their interpretation of everything is what is important, not the rules set out for all to follow. TO be clear, I am not accusing anybody of anything. But it does make these sorts of... questionable....actions all too easy.

Or you could avoid any kind of post deletion by staying out of the political threads. Problem solved.
"When a man is in despair, it means that he still believes in something." - Dmitri Shostakovich

Offline greg

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1637
  • Location: San Antonio, TX
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #169 on: June 16, 2020, 06:17:13 AM »
Or you could avoid any kind of post deletion by staying out of the political threads. Problem solved.
True.

It's just natural to comment on stuff if it's nearby.

For example, there's a post there about how it would have been better if Stalin killed more people and the US were permanently destroyed. It's not even part of a joke. It hasn't been removed. Apparently my post was more questionable.
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

Offline Florestan

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 22362
  • Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #170 on: June 16, 2020, 06:18:58 AM »
For example, there's a post there about how it would have been better if Stalin killed more people and the US were permanently destroyed. It's not even part of a joke. It hasn't been removed.

Let me guess: it's amw, right?  :D

The chick is crazy when it comes to politics.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2020, 06:21:33 AM by Florestan »
"Melody is the essence of music." - Mozart

"Believe nothing you hear, and only one-half that you see." - Edgar Allan Poe

Offline Mirror Image

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 58272
  • Dmitri Shostakovich (1906 - 1975)
  • Location: Northeast GA, US
  • Currently Listening to:
    Mostly Austro-Germanic and Soviet/Russian repertoire
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #171 on: June 16, 2020, 06:24:29 AM »
True.

It's just natural to comment on stuff if it's nearby.

For example, there's a post there about how it would have been better if Stalin killed more people and the US were permanently destroyed. It's not even part of a joke. It hasn't been removed. Apparently my post was more questionable.

I never understood the mentality of “I’m on a music forum, but since I’m here, I should go over to the political thread and spread propaganda.” If I can use an analogy, the political threads are like bright streetlights and people who flock to those threads day in/day out are like flies. But now that the mods have laid down some reasonable and well-founded guidelines, those streetlights have morphed into bug zappers. :D
"When a man is in despair, it means that he still believes in something." - Dmitri Shostakovich

Offline greg

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1637
  • Location: San Antonio, TX
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #172 on: June 16, 2020, 06:34:34 AM »
Let me guess: it's amw, right?  :D

The chick is crazy when it comes to politics.
Of course lol.


I never understood the mentality of “I’m on a music forum, but since I’m here, I should go over to the political thread and spread propaganda.” If I can use an analogy, the political threads are like bright streetlights and people who flock to those threads day in/day out are like flies. But now that the mods have laid down some reasonable and well-founded guidelines, those streetlights have morphed into bug zappers. :D
People heavily into politics are gonna want to talk about it. What goes in must come out. Using the same forum for both music and politics is just more convenient, I guess, then switching back and forth between multiple forums. The updated threads all appear together.

My motivations are just to talk about anything in a forum that I know is already comfortable to post in. But the "anything" turns into mostly just politics since I seem to be monologue-ing in the threads I'm actually interested in.
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

Offline Iota

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1053
  • Location: UK
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #173 on: June 16, 2020, 06:35:23 AM »
Fwiw, I find the fact that this forum allows political discussion a distinctive and enriching quality. Hearing political discussion in a setting that is already somewhat familiar, is slightly different than heading to a place specifically for that purpose, for some reason. I'd be sorry to see it go.

Offline greg

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1637
  • Location: San Antonio, TX
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #174 on: June 16, 2020, 06:43:55 AM »
Just one more thought about the Stalin thing (sorry).

But a YouTuber I really like (bald and bankrupt) regularly visits Soviet ruins, and in one episode he visits the grave site of an entire family line that was murdered under the regime. It will make you want to cry. I don't know how anyone could look at that and continue to suggest more people should have been killed...
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

Offline Florestan

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 22362
  • Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #175 on: June 16, 2020, 06:47:09 AM »
Just one more thought about the Stalin thing (sorry).

But a YouTuber I really like (bald and bankrupt) regularly visits Soviet ruins, and in one episode he visits the grave site of an entire family line that was murdered under the regime. It will make you want to cry. I don't know how anyone could look at that and continue to suggest more people should have been killed...

She's either being deliberately provocative or really a nutjob. Either way ignoring her is the best policy (pun).
"Melody is the essence of music." - Mozart

"Believe nothing you hear, and only one-half that you see." - Edgar Allan Poe

Offline Mirror Image

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 58272
  • Dmitri Shostakovich (1906 - 1975)
  • Location: Northeast GA, US
  • Currently Listening to:
    Mostly Austro-Germanic and Soviet/Russian repertoire
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #176 on: June 16, 2020, 06:50:11 AM »
Fwiw, I find the fact that this forum allows political discussion a distinctive and enriching quality. Hearing political discussion in a setting that is already somewhat familiar, is slightly different than heading to a place specifically for that purpose, for some reason. I'd be sorry to see it go.

Great, so head over the Trump thread and get insulted. Start your day with that!
"When a man is in despair, it means that he still believes in something." - Dmitri Shostakovich

Offline steve ridgway

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 2240
  • Location: Cheshire, England
  • Currently Listening to:
    The museum of musical modernism
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #177 on: June 16, 2020, 06:53:23 AM »
My motivations are just to talk about anything in a forum that I know is already comfortable to post in. But the "anything" turns into mostly just politics since I seem to be monologue-ing in the threads I'm actually interested in.

Oh all right. I am not going to give personal info to a load of dodgy “quiz” sites but have added to the dreams thread.

Offline Iota

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1053
  • Location: UK
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #178 on: June 16, 2020, 08:35:32 AM »
Great, so head over the Trump thread and get insulted. Start your day with that!

I've managed perfectly well so far, without ever going on that thread.

Offline Wanderer

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 5746
  • Quo non ascendam?
Re: Consider banning politics
« Reply #179 on: June 16, 2020, 08:46:59 AM »
Ban politics already, or at least exclude the relevant threads from the “show unread posts” query.