GMG Classical Music Forum

I noticed, after I deleted my account, some comments to the effect that this was a 'drama queen' move. Fair enough. In retrospect I should have just logged off. Although the new member registration system is still broken DavidW was kind enough to get this account established.

As to my reasons for leaving, I was dissatisfied with the way things were developing on this board, with some members repeatedly violating the rules and norms of the board with impunity. Having a half-days worth of my postings deleted simply because I observed that a certain event occurred during the administration of a certain president was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

The reason for deleting my account was to remove the temptation to return. I will see if I can resist that temptation.

Good to see you!

Welcome back, Spotted Horses! You are a valued member of this forum.

Welcome back! You've been missed.

Welcome back and post when and as you wish.

Good to have you back!

K

Welcome back SH.  8)

Welcome back!  :)

I'm very glad to see your return.

Quote from: foxandpeng on October 09, 2024, 12:33:19 PMI'm very glad to see your return.

Me too - Welcome back!
 :)

Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 09, 2024, 08:28:30 AMHaving a half-days worth of my postings deleted simply because I observed that a certain event occurred during the administration of a certain president was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

And understandably so. Few things mystify me more than the persistent belief that deleting or moving reams of posts is the solution for everything. Except perhaps the hyperbolic reaction to things that really don't warrant such reactions. I have come to expect these problems with certain algorithms (in a Tori Amos Facebook group we have to change the titles of 2 songs because Meta's computers get tremendously upset if we use the actual titles). It's frankly disappointing when our human moderators jump into immediate action in a similar way, and I've had at least a couple of occasions where they've had to admit to me afterwards that they made a mistake.

QuoteThe reason for deleting my account was to remove the temptation to return. I will see if I can resist that temptation.

Duly noted. But I hope that we change direction sufficiently that you feel tempted.

Please DO stay.  :)

K

Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 09, 2024, 08:28:30 AMI noticed, after I deleted my account, some comments to the effect that this was a 'drama queen' move. Fair enough. In retrospect I should have just logged off. Although the new member registration system is still broken DavidW was kind enough to get this account established.

As to my reasons for leaving, I was dissatisfied with the way things were developing on this board, with some members repeatedly violating the rules and norms of the board with impunity. Having a half-days worth of my postings deleted simply because I observed that a certain event occurred during the administration of a certain president was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

The reason for deleting my account was to remove the temptation to return. I will see if I can resist that temptation.

I don't know what all happened, I mainly attend the "What are you  listening 2 now...) thread and therefore stay out of the sword fights that take place elsewhere on the forum. There is a lot of immature behavior and there is no place in the world you can go where that is not present. Come back I would say, your presence is certainly appreciated. :)

I am the moderator who deleted Spotted Horses' posts. I bet you would be surprised that he was one of my favorite posters here, but it is true. And I am not lying. I always enjoyed seeing what he was listening to, his opinions, his takes on music, his takes on audiophilia. I'm there for all of it. Frankly, more than most of you, if not all of you.

But I think that many of you (frankly, any of you who liked Madiel's post) have memory issues or simple comprehension issues. Probably more than half of the posters on this forum have left because they just could not stand the TOXIC POSTS about US Politics over and over and over and over again across the years. These comments were just filling up every corner of the diner. I know that some posters like Traverso are wise and just avoid the diner, but the reality is that many just can't take it. And frankly, they should not have to.

And those of you who are not from the US need to understand that US politics is POISON. Now more than ever. I can't believe that in the wake of post-9/11 and the second Gulf War, it is worse, but it is absolutely EXPONENTIALLY WORSE. It has gotten to a point where half the people in the USA demonize the other half and can't see eye to eye AT ALL.

Even in the diner, this is supposed to be an oasis from that constant negativity. It drives people to depression and drinking. It turns neighbors against each other. It has almost led to a civil war. And I am not joking. This forum is about enjoying Mozart and garbage that Ritter likes, such as Wagner and Stockhausen.

It turns out it drives out people in droves, and action needs to be taken when even posters that we appreciate, like Spotted Horses, cross the line. There is a need for strict moderation on US politics after all this time, and if you are a long-time poster and you don't appreciate that fact, then shame on YOU for your myopia and lack of empathy.

And if you want me to resign because you can't see the bigger picture, I will take it on the chin, unlike others and continue to post here without my moderation status.

But you need to understand that this is not supposed to be an echo chamber for either political party. This is supposed to be a place where we share our passion for classical music.

I take these actions not because I enjoy it or because I am on a power trip. I don't take it because I'm out of my mind on some kind of puritanical ego trip. I don't take action out of posters I don't like. I just want the forum NOT to DIE. And it is on LIFE SUPPORT. Can you realize how close we are to the death of the forum?

I have posted here since the early 2000s. And I'm telling you the cup runneth over then; there was so many posters, so much discussion. It was FANTASTIC. But today... there are a handful of active posters here, and if one thing goes wrong, the forum is dead forever. And that would be a shame. I'm such a hard-nosed jerk because I don't want that to happen.

Did you know that I checked the list of new, unregistered members nearly EVERY DAY for Spotted Horses return? And then it took me at least half an hour of fighting with the garbage forum software to get him to return. If you think that I am such a selfish, foolish moderator... would you do the same? WOULD YOU?

Quote from: DavidW on October 12, 2024, 03:25:00 PMI am the moderator who deleted Spotted Horses' posts. I bet you would be surprised that he was one of my favorite posters here, but it is true. And I am not lying. I always enjoyed seeing what he was listening to, his opinions, his takes on music, his takes on audiophilia. I'm there for all of it. Frankly, more than most of you, if not all of you.

But I think that many of you (frankly, any of you who liked Madiel's post) have memory issues or simple comprehension issues. Probably more than half of the posters on this forum have left because they just could not stand the TOXIC POSTS about US Politics over and over and over and over again across the years. These comments were just filling up every corner of the diner. I know that some posters like Traverso are wise and just avoid the diner, but the reality is that many just can't take it. And frankly, they should not have to.

And those of you who are not from the US need to understand that US politics is POISON. Now more than ever. I can't believe that in the wake of post-9/11 and the second Gulf War, it is worse, but it is absolutely EXPONENTIALLY WORSE. It has gotten to a point where half the people in the USA demonize the other half and can't see eye to eye AT ALL.

Even in the diner, this is supposed to be an oasis from that constant negativity. It drives people to depression and drinking. It turns neighbors against each other. It has almost led to a civil war. And I am not joking. This forum is about enjoying Mozart and garbage that Ritter likes, such as Wagner and Stockhausen.

It turns out it drives out people in droves, and action needs to be taken when even posters that we appreciate, like Spotted Horses, cross the line. There is a need for strict moderation on US politics after all this time, and if you are a long-time poster and you don't appreciate that fact, then shame on YOU for your myopia and lack of empathy.

And if you want me to resign because you can't see the bigger picture, I will take it on the chin, unlike others and continue to post here without my moderation status.

But you need to understand that this is not supposed to be an echo chamber for either political party. This is supposed to be a place where we share our passion for classical music.

I take these actions not because I enjoy it or because I am on a power trip. I don't take it because I'm out of my mind on some kind of puritanical ego trip. I don't take action out of posters I don't like. I just want the forum NOT to DIE. And it is on LIFE SUPPORT. Can you realize how close we are to the death of the forum?

I have posted here since the early 2000s. And I'm telling you the cup runneth over then; there was so many posters, so much discussion. It was FANTASTIC. But today... there are a handful of active posters here, and if one thing goes wrong, the forum is dead forever. And that would be a shame. I'm such a hard-nosed jerk because I don't want that to happen.

Did you know that I checked the list of new, unregistered members nearly EVERY DAY for Spotted Horses return? And then it took me at least half an hour of fighting with the garbage forum software to get him to return. If you think that I am such a selfish, foolish moderator... would you do the same? WOULD YOU?

As @Karl Henning might do, *pounds table*

Yeah. This just demonstrates the exact point in my post that people were liking.

The mere mention of the name Trump does not mean a post is about US politics in a meaningful sense. THIS POST is not about US politics in a meaningful sense. Turning Trump into Voldemort just causes ridiculous twists and turns (and I note that in various instances people in the Harry Potter books mention Voldemort without being suddenly struck down, sometimes that's the point) where people can't sensibly refer to things. Who the president was when an event occurred, without more, is simply a historical fact.


If you leap into action the second that Trump is mentioned without more, you really are behaving like the Facebook algorithm I referred to. Without context.

The last time I had a moderator say something to me, you were one of the 2 moderators involved and it was genuinely absurd. Claiming that discussing a performer on a new release was irrelevant in the New Releases thread was nothing more than reaching for a justification for saying something else entirely. The discussion about how absurd this was ended up being a lot longer than the initial conversation the moderators were apparently worried about. And why? Because you're frankly trigger happy. On at least one occasion David, you're the moderator who I got to admit to me that you were trigger happy. And while rapidly sweeping things away might make some forum members who can't handle the least sign of conflict relieved, it can also really annoy some of us who weren't actually trying to create the firestorm you panicked about.

I can also think of at least one time when a moderator deleted a post of mine that they'd misread. It didn't say what they thought (and what at least some posters thought perhaps). Maybe my choice of expression made my meaning unclear, but maybe that could've been cleared up if the first move hadn't been deletion.

I don't have a problem with the moderators stepping in when required. But just count to 10 a bit more often. For one thing, the capacity to lock threads for a time doesn't just give posters a chance to cool off, it gives the moderators a chance as well. And quite frankly sometimes it's the moderators who need it.

Quote from: DavidW on October 12, 2024, 03:25:00 PMI am the moderator who deleted Spotted Horses' posts. I bet you would be surprised that he was one of my favorite posters here, but it is true. And I am not lying. I always enjoyed seeing what he was listening to, his opinions, his takes on music, his takes on audiophilia. I'm there for all of it. Frankly, more than most of you, if not all of you.

But I think that many of you (frankly, any of you who liked Madiel's post) have memory issues or simple comprehension issues. Probably more than half of the posters on this forum have left because they just could not stand the TOXIC POSTS about US Politics over and over and over and over again across the years. These comments were just filling up every corner of the diner. I know that some posters like Traverso are wise and just avoid the diner, but the reality is that many just can't take it. And frankly, they should not have to.

And those of you who are not from the US need to understand that US politics is POISON. Now more than ever. I can't believe that in the wake of post-9/11 and the second Gulf War, it is worse, but it is absolutely EXPONENTIALLY WORSE. It has gotten to a point where half the people in the USA demonize the other half and can't see eye to eye AT ALL.

Even in the diner, this is supposed to be an oasis from that constant negativity. It drives people to depression and drinking. It turns neighbors against each other. It has almost led to a civil war. And I am not joking. This forum is about enjoying Mozart and garbage that Ritter likes, such as Wagner and Stockhausen.

It turns out it drives out people in droves, and action needs to be taken when even posters that we appreciate, like Spotted Horses, cross the line. There is a need for strict moderation on US politics after all this time, and if you are a long-time poster and you don't appreciate that fact, then shame on YOU for your myopia and lack of empathy.

And if you want me to resign because you can't see the bigger picture, I will take it on the chin, unlike others and continue to post here without my moderation status.

But you need to understand that this is not supposed to be an echo chamber for either political party. This is supposed to be a place where we share our passion for classical music.

I take these actions not because I enjoy it or because I am on a power trip. I don't take it because I'm out of my mind on some kind of puritanical ego trip. I don't take action out of posters I don't like. I just want the forum NOT to DIE. And it is on LIFE SUPPORT. Can you realize how close we are to the death of the forum?

I have posted here since the early 2000s. And I'm telling you the cup runneth over then; there was so many posters, so much discussion. It was FANTASTIC. But today... there are a handful of active posters here, and if one thing goes wrong, the forum is dead forever. And that would be a shame. I'm such a hard-nosed jerk because I don't want that to happen.

Did you know that I checked the list of new, unregistered members nearly EVERY DAY for Spotted Horses return? And then it took me at least half an hour of fighting with the garbage forum software to get him to return. If you think that I am such a selfish, foolish moderator... would you do the same? WOULD YOU?

I feel for you...truly!  I don't remember the posts, but that said,  I believe that you did what you thought was right.  And politics can be really divisive; I do get that.  And yes, I truly think that you try to be kind.  And as an American, it matters to me that we can talk kindly to each other and listen to what the other side has to say; we're in this together...along with the rest of the world.  You are not alone: 

K

As for the actual toxicity of US politics, I have no dispute. The relevant thread was quite awful when I poked my head into it occasionally.

But frankly, we may have different views about exactly why so many people left the forum.

Quote from: DavidW on October 12, 2024, 03:25:00 PMI am the moderator who deleted Spotted Horses' posts. I bet you would be surprised that he was one of my favorite posters here, but it is true. And I am not lying. I always enjoyed seeing what he was listening to, his opinions, his takes on music, his takes on audiophilia. I'm there for all of it. Frankly, more than most of you, if not all of you.

But I think that many of you (frankly, any of you who liked Madiel's post) have memory issues or simple comprehension issues. Probably more than half of the posters on this forum have left because they just could not stand the TOXIC POSTS about US Politics over and over and over and over again across the years. These comments were just filling up every corner of the diner. I know that some posters like Traverso are wise and just avoid the diner, but the reality is that many just can't take it. And frankly, they should not have to.

And those of you who are not from the US need to understand that US politics is POISON. Now more than ever. I can't believe that in the wake of post-9/11 and the second Gulf War, it is worse, but it is absolutely EXPONENTIALLY WORSE. It has gotten to a point where half the people in the USA demonize the other half and can't see eye to eye AT ALL.

Even in the diner, this is supposed to be an oasis from that constant negativity. It drives people to depression and drinking. It turns neighbors against each other. It has almost led to a civil war. And I am not joking. This forum is about enjoying Mozart and garbage that Ritter likes, such as Wagner and Stockhausen.

It turns out it drives out people in droves, and action needs to be taken when even posters that we appreciate, like Spotted Horses, cross the line. There is a need for strict moderation on US politics after all this time, and if you are a long-time poster and you don't appreciate that fact, then shame on YOU for your myopia and lack of empathy.

And if you want me to resign because you can't see the bigger picture, I will take it on the chin, unlike others and continue to post here without my moderation status.

But you need to understand that this is not supposed to be an echo chamber for either political party. This is supposed to be a place where we share our passion for classical music.

I take these actions not because I enjoy it or because I am on a power trip. I don't take it because I'm out of my mind on some kind of puritanical ego trip. I don't take action out of posters I don't like. I just want the forum NOT to DIE. And it is on LIFE SUPPORT. Can you realize how close we are to the death of the forum?

I have posted here since the early 2000s. And I'm telling you the cup runneth over then; there was so many posters, so much discussion. It was FANTASTIC. But today... there are a handful of active posters here, and if one thing goes wrong, the forum is dead forever. And that would be a shame. I'm such a hard-nosed jerk because I don't want that to happen.

Did you know that I checked the list of new, unregistered members nearly EVERY DAY for Spotted Horses return? And then it took me at least half an hour of fighting with the garbage forum software to get him to return. If you think that I am such a selfish, foolish moderator... would you do the same? WOULD YOU?

An entirely admirable and enlightening post. Not all of us would have the courage and integrity to lay it all on the line as you have here done. Proud that you're a friend of mine.

Quote from: DavidW on October 12, 2024, 03:25:00 PMI have posted here since the early 2000s. And I'm telling you the cup runneth over then; there was so many posters, so much discussion. It was FANTASTIC. But today... there are a handful of active posters here, and if one thing goes wrong, the forum is dead forever. And that would be a shame. I'm such a hard-nosed jerk because I don't want that to happen.

This is true of most forums that have been around from the early 2000s and are still struggling on. I usually see the blame put on Facebook, and the migrations said to start long before Trump.

But I don't disagree with everything else you've written.

Quote from: SimonNZ on October 12, 2024, 08:00:13 PMThis is true of most forums that have been around from the early 2000s and are still struggling on. I usually see the blame put on Facebook, and the migrations said to start long before Trump.

But I don't disagree with everything else you've written.

I mean everything eventually dies. I'm amazed this forum is as active as it is, especially for how niche it is.

Quote from: Kalevala on October 12, 2024, 04:16:45 PMI feel for you...truly!  I don't remember the posts, but that said,  I believe that you did what you thought was right.  And politics can be really divisive; I do get that.  And yes, I truly think that you try to be kind.  And as an American, it matters to me that we can talk kindly to each other and listen to what the other side has to say; we're in this together...along with the rest of the world.  You are not alone: 

K

Well said!

Quote from: DavidW on October 12, 2024, 03:25:00 PMI am the moderator who deleted Spotted Horses' posts. I bet you would be surprised that he was one of my favorite posters here, but it is true. And I am not lying. I always enjoyed seeing what he was listening to, his opinions, his takes on music, his takes on audiophilia. I'm there for all of it. Frankly, more than most of you, if not all of you.

But I think that many of you (frankly, any of you who liked Madiel's post) have memory issues or simple comprehension issues. Probably more than half of the posters on this forum have left because they just could not stand the TOXIC POSTS about US Politics over and over and over and over again across the years. These comments were just filling up every corner of the diner. I know that some posters like Traverso are wise and just avoid the diner, but the reality is that many just can't take it. And frankly, they should not have to.

And those of you who are not from the US need to understand that US politics is POISON. Now more than ever. I can't believe that in the wake of post-9/11 and the second Gulf War, it is worse, but it is absolutely EXPONENTIALLY WORSE. It has gotten to a point where half the people in the USA demonize the other half and can't see eye to eye AT ALL.

Even in the diner, this is supposed to be an oasis from that constant negativity. It drives people to depression and drinking. It turns neighbors against each other. It has almost led to a civil war. And I am not joking. This forum is about enjoying Mozart and garbage that Ritter likes, such as Wagner and Stockhausen.

It turns out it drives out people in droves, and action needs to be taken when even posters that we appreciate, like Spotted Horses, cross the line. There is a need for strict moderation on US politics after all this time, and if you are a long-time poster and you don't appreciate that fact, then shame on YOU for your myopia and lack of empathy.

And if you want me to resign because you can't see the bigger picture, I will take it on the chin, unlike others and continue to post here without my moderation status.

But you need to understand that this is not supposed to be an echo chamber for either political party. This is supposed to be a place where we share our passion for classical music.

I take these actions not because I enjoy it or because I am on a power trip. I don't take it because I'm out of my mind on some kind of puritanical ego trip. I don't take action out of posters I don't like. I just want the forum NOT to DIE. And it is on LIFE SUPPORT. Can you realize how close we are to the death of the forum?

I have posted here since the early 2000s. And I'm telling you the cup runneth over then; there was so many posters, so much discussion. It was FANTASTIC. But today... there are a handful of active posters here, and if one thing goes wrong, the forum is dead forever. And that would be a shame. I'm such a hard-nosed jerk because I don't want that to happen.

Did you know that I checked the list of new, unregistered members nearly EVERY DAY for Spotted Horses return? And then it took me at least half an hour of fighting with the garbage forum software to get him to return. If you think that I am such a selfish, foolish moderator... would you do the same? WOULD YOU?

I think you're trying to be overly controlling. There are adults here who are almost always capable of controlling themselves. Well, except for one bully and a couple of whinу complainers. What doesn't really make a difference, in my opinion. People leave and come for a variety of reasons, and not at all because someone wrote something. It all comes down to there being fewer reasons to stay than there are to switch to something else. If the forum is gradually dying, you can't stop this process with bans and purges. All systems/organisms are born, flourish and die. It is natural. You can try to stop it or mummify it, but what's the point?

Quote from: Madiel on October 12, 2024, 04:06:57 PM...

The last time I had a moderator say something to me, you were one of the 2 moderators involved and it was genuinely absurd. Claiming that discussing a performer on a new release was irrelevant in the New Releases thread was nothing more than reaching for a justification for saying something else entirely. The discussion about how absurd this was ended up being a lot longer than the initial conversation the moderators were apparently worried about. And why? Because you're frankly trigger happy. On at least one occasion David, you're the moderator who I got to admit to me that you were trigger happy. And while rapidly sweeping things away might make some forum members who can't handle the least sign of conflict relieved, it can also really annoy some of us who weren't actually trying to create the firestorm you panicked about.

I can also think of at least one time when a moderator deleted a post of mine that they'd misread. It didn't say what they thought (and what at least some posters thought perhaps). Maybe my choice of expression made my meaning unclear, but maybe that could've been cleared up if the first move hadn't been deletion.

I don't have a problem with the moderators stepping in when required. But just count to 10 a bit more often. For one thing, the capacity to lock threads for a time doesn't just give posters a chance to cool off, it gives the moderators a chance as well. And quite frankly sometimes it's the moderators who need it.

Oh, Madiel, it must be such a huge burden to be in constant possession of the truth! But, when one's memory is selective, then that responsibility becomes difficult to manage...

You keep insisting the moderation team stopped and erased a discussion about a specific performer (Jimmy Fallon, for those who do not remember). No, what the moderation team stopped was a discussion between you and another member —one who you claim is in your ignore list— where the virtues or lack thereof of Mr. Fallon were an excuse, once again, to settle scores and to engage in an argument that did not add anything to the issue at hand and just reflected the animosity between two members. And that's why we moderators stepped in (because, to be honest, we don't give a damn about Mr. Fallon and who likes or dislikes him).

And, frankly, some members might think twice about calling us moderators "trigger happy" and saying that members "can't handle the least sign of conflict" given the history of posts reported to us moderators.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 12, 2024, 10:37:35 PMI think you're trying to be overly controlling. There are adults here who are almost always capable of controlling themselves.

Sadly, many adults here often behave like children, and they know they're behaving like that. They think they have the right get away with it, but get indignant when others seem to be getting away with it.

Quote from: DavidW on October 12, 2024, 03:25:00 PMI am the moderator who deleted Spotted Horses' posts. I bet you would be surprised that he was one of my favorite posters here, but it is true. And I am not lying. I always enjoyed seeing what he was listening to, his opinions, his takes on music, his takes on audiophilia. I'm there for all of it. Frankly, more than most of you, if not all of you.

But I think that many of you (frankly, any of you who liked Madiel's post) have memory issues or simple comprehension issues. Probably more than half of the posters on this forum have left because they just could not stand the TOXIC POSTS about US Politics over and over and over and over again across the years. These comments were just filling up every corner of the diner. I know that some posters like Traverso are wise and just avoid the diner, but the reality is that many just can't take it. And frankly, they should not have to.

And those of you who are not from the US need to understand that US politics is POISON. Now more than ever. I can't believe that in the wake of post-9/11 and the second Gulf War, it is worse, but it is absolutely EXPONENTIALLY WORSE. It has gotten to a point where half the people in the USA demonize the other half and can't see eye to eye AT ALL.

Even in the diner, this is supposed to be an oasis from that constant negativity. It drives people to depression and drinking. It turns neighbors against each other. It has almost led to a civil war. And I am not joking. This forum is about enjoying Mozart and garbage that Ritter likes, such as Wagner and Stockhausen.

It turns out it drives out people in droves, and action needs to be taken when even posters that we appreciate, like Spotted Horses, cross the line. There is a need for strict moderation on US politics after all this time, and if you are a long-time poster and you don't appreciate that fact, then shame on YOU for your myopia and lack of empathy.

And if you want me to resign because you can't see the bigger picture, I will take it on the chin, unlike others and continue to post here without my moderation status.

But you need to understand that this is not supposed to be an echo chamber for either political party. This is supposed to be a place where we share our passion for classical music.

I take these actions not because I enjoy it or because I am on a power trip. I don't take it because I'm out of my mind on some kind of puritanical ego trip. I don't take action out of posters I don't like. I just want the forum NOT to DIE. And it is on LIFE SUPPORT. Can you realize how close we are to the death of the forum?

I have posted here since the early 2000s. And I'm telling you the cup runneth over then; there was so many posters, so much discussion. It was FANTASTIC. But today... there are a handful of active posters here, and if one thing goes wrong, the forum is dead forever. And that would be a shame. I'm such a hard-nosed jerk because I don't want that to happen.

Did you know that I checked the list of new, unregistered members nearly EVERY DAY for Spotted Horses return? And then it took me at least half an hour of fighting with the garbage forum software to get him to return. If you think that I am such a selfish, foolish moderator... would you do the same? WOULD YOU?

I appreciate the effort you made to help me reestablish my account. I think that alone is enough to justify resumption of my participation.

However, I will reiterate that I, although I mentioned Mr T in my post, I was not making what I saw as a argument. I was illustrating the definition of censorship; government restricting its own speech vs government restricting the speech of a private entity. If you had simply PM'd me and pointed out that any mention of Mr T is verboten, I could have easily rephrased my post make the point without mention he, whose name can't be spoken.

"The forum is dying," is a common refrain. Is it really? It is not difficult to check.

I looked at the WAYLT thread from Oct 11, 2024, and noted all of the users who made posts. By my count there were a total of 66 posts from 23 distinct users. I went to a point near the beginning of the thread, randomly selecting Oct 9, 2019. There were 55 posts from 21 distinct users. No significant difference. If anything, after five years there is slightly more participation. I would have gone back farther in time, but I don't know how to find the previous WAYLT threads (they were periodically restarted after they got too big for the server to handle). Search for them didn't work.

If the forum is dying it is because the web site itself is not viable. New user registration has been broken for months. I see no indication that it will be fixed anytime soon, if ever. People a drifting away, as they have always done, but no one can drift in.

And what else can drive people off the forum? How about the misogyny of comparing Yuja Wang to a prostitute turning tricks in Time Square? How is that still on the forum? Is it okay because it wasn't addressed to a participant of the forum? It is the oldest misogynistic trick in the book, no matter what a woman achieves, it is secondary to her physical appearance. And this is just the most blatantly offensive recent example. But of course, it is all in good fun, and the women don't find this degrading, as we can see by the abundance of female participants we have here. Oh wait.

I'm tempted to delete my account again.

First this:

Quote from: DavidW on October 12, 2024, 05:29:12 AMNot me! I'm just enjoying my life. My great struggle is trying to prevent myself from upgrading my speakers. :laugh:

then this: https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,33499.msg1588328.html#msg1588328

Rather incongruous, David.  :D

Quote from: DavidW on October 12, 2024, 03:25:00 PMI think that many of you (frankly, any of you who liked Madiel's post) have memory issues or simple comprehension issues.

The big irony in this is that among those who you so harshly rebuke for liking Madiel's post there are Karl and Kalevala, who later liked, and publicly commended, your post too. I wonder what do you make of it.  ;D

QuoteIt turns out it drives out people in droves, and action needs to be taken

It also turns out that action taken to prevent members from leaving results in members leaving.  ::) 
 

Quotewhen even posters that we appreciate, like Spotted Horses, cross the line.

I'm sorry, but @Spotted Horses did not cross any line. I know exactly what I'm talking about, because I was personally involved in that discussion, which incidentally was about censorship and which, by your admittance, was neither heated nor uncivil. Spotted Horses brought up Trump merely as an example of government censoring their own employees, the emphasis being on censorship, not on Trump. I am positively convinced that the discussion would have naturally and quietly faded away, had it not been for a certain poster who reported the post, thus triggering the whole kerfuffle. Which brings me back to what I said before and by which I firmly stand; the report function should be used sparingly because sometimes it can be more toxic and divisive than the allegedly toxic and divisive posts it is supposed to suppress. If the busybodies of this forum (you know who you are!) stopped acting like self-appointed guardians of public morality and started minding their own effing business, things would run smoother here.

QuoteI have posted here since the early 2000s.

So have I, but i don't share your idyllic view of GMG's past. There were lots of contentious threads back then as well, mostly about religion (always started by militant atheists, never by theists or agnostics). There were many obnoxious posters back then as well, one of them an unrepentant bully who eventually got banned, God rest him in peace. The nastiest thread ever, with insults and ad hominem far worse than anything ever encountered in the US Politics thread, started as a discussion about Haydn's string quartets. And people were leaving the forum back then as well, for various reasons, none of them having anything to do with politics, let alone Trump.

Quotetoday... there are a handful of active posters here,

I'm sorry again, but this is a gross underestimation.

Beside, when comparing the quantity of membership today with that of the early GMG, you must take into account not only those who left for being upset with GMG per se, but also, and perhaps more importantly, those who died (God bless all their souls) and those who left from reasons not related to GMG per se, such as having just a transient interest in classical music, or simply having discovered, or re-discovered, that there is a whole life out there to be lived away from addictive internet boards. As others have mentioned, the decline in membership is a general phenomenon of forums, not a specific GMG one.

Quoteif one thing goes wrong, the forum is dead forever.

Well, there is one thing going wrong right now, namely this:

Quoteit took me at least half an hour of fighting with the garbage forum software to get him to return.

Precisely. New members being prevented from registering is far more dangerous to GMG's survival than some members leaving (and generally returning, or attempting to return, after a while).

As for the toxicity of the present US politics, no argument from me. I experienced exactly the same bitter division and hatred and civil-war-ish atmosphere during the early 1990s, when the whole of Romania was split between the supporters of liberal democracy and market economy and those of the former (actually, not so former at all) Communists who aimed for nothing more than Perestroika and in various occasions used extreme violence against protesters. Things have gone a long way since, though, and the political life is now much calmer and settled. So I can see where you're coming from.

There is, though, a reverse to the matter. Having lived in a regime which not only actively sought and promoted unflinching unanimity of thought and action in society, but also, and principally, violently enforced it, I am rather suspicious of such unanimity and believe that political disagreement and competition is a natural and healthy phenomenon --- of course, as long as it is kept strictly within the rule of law and civility.

QuoteIf you think that I am such a selfish, foolish moderator... would you do the same? WOULD YOU?

What I personally think is that this is an overreaction. Nobody ever accused you, or any other mod for that matter, of being selfish and foolish.

I also think that the whole thing has been blown out of all proportions and a more relaxed attitude from all of us is in order. The world has greater and graver problems.  ;)

Quote from: ritter on October 13, 2024, 01:04:45 AMYou keep insisting the moderation team stopped and erased a discussion about a specific performer (Jimmy Fallon, for those who do not remember). No, what the moderation team stopped was a discussion between you and another member —one who you claim is in your ignore list— where the virtues or lack thereof of Mr. Fallon were an excuse, once again, to settle scores and to engage in an argument that did not add anything to the issue at hand and just reflected the animosity between two members. And that's why we moderators stepped in (because, to be honest, we don't give a damn about Mr. Fallon and who likes or dislikes him).

Wow.

The posts actually still exist. Maybe you should go read them (noting that they now run across 2 different threads). Because what you said FIRST was "this conversation is irrelevant". That's my point.

Only after that did you get around to saying what you really meant: don't talk with Todd.

And apparently you didn't actually bother reading, or maybe believing, what I said about it. I did not comment because of Todd. I commented because by that point at least 3 different people seemed to have slightly lost their mind about Jimmy Fallon. You came along and became a fourth. I did NOT comment when only Todd had said something about Jimmy Fallon. GO AND LOOK.

This is not about me "possessing the truth". This is about facts that can still be documented, because unlike some other instances, the posts weren't deleted. They were just moved into a stupid thread. Only the first two comments about Jimmy Fallon weren't moved, because... the whole exercise was completely illogical, that's why.

Nor is it about me having "constant possession". At no stage at this conversation have I said that I'm always right. The problem I'm having is that it seems that the moderators, unlike me, believe that they're perfect. Well you're not. As much as I like you, the bit where you said "talking about Jimmy Fallon is irrelevant" before admitting what you were actually doing, which was panicking because if I'd argued with Todd a couple of days before and therefore I couldn't possibly be trusted to have learned anything, that bit I really didn't have much respect for what you were doing.

The conversation with Todd was done with. You came crashing in. Go back and READ IT.

PS: Oh, and by the way, Todd is indeed in my Ignore list. There is exactly one thread where I find him useful and regularly read his posts: The New Releases thread. So terribly sorry for doing that, how dare I take an interest in CONTENT.

Well, we can keep writing pages and pages about this, Madiel. The fact is, you know perfectly well why that discussion had to be stopped. But if you feel you've been wronged, well, it's a pity.

In general, the problem with moderation is perfectly easy to explain:

If I am the target of moderation, or my posts are deleted, then "moderation bad, BAD!!". If the moderators do not act towards other members the way I wish, then "moderation bad, BAD!" as well. If the moderators act as I want them to, then "moderation good, GOOD!".

Best,

Quote from: ritter on October 13, 2024, 02:06:01 AMWell, we can keep writing pages and pages about this, Madiel. The fact is, you know perfectly well why that discussion had to be stopped. But if you feel you've been wronged, well, it's a pity.

Best,

What's a pity is that this very post shows a lack of reading comprehension. I know why you think it had to be stopped. My points are:

1. You didn't start by giving that reason, you gave another one. This is directly verifiable from your own posts. Would you like me to link to them?

2. The conversation had already stopped before you rushed in to stop it. I have told you this several times now, and yet you insist on either ignoring me or calling me a liar.

Quote from: Madiel on October 13, 2024, 02:09:38 AMWhat's a pity is that this very post shows a lack of reading comprehension. I know why you think it had to be stopped. My points are:

1. You didn't start by giving that reason, you gave another one. This is directly verifiable from your own posts. Would you like me to link to them?

2. The conversation had already stopped before you rushed in to stop it. I have told you this several times now, and yet you insist on either ignoring me or calling me a liar.

Oh, man. Para ti la perra gorda...  ::)

Quote from: ritter on October 13, 2024, 02:12:10 AMOh, man. Para ti la perra chica...  ::)

No entiendo.

Adiós.

No Rafael, don't like the post. The fact that I walk off because you are repeatedly insulting me is not something to enjoy.

Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 13, 2024, 01:24:37 AMAnd what else can drive people off the forum? How about the misogyny of comparing Yuja Wang to a prostitute turning tricks in Time Square? How is that still on the forum? Is it okay because it wasn't addressed to a participant of the forum? It is the oldest misogynistic trick in the book, no matter what a woman achieves, it is secondary to her physical appearance. And this is just the most blatantly offensive recent example. But of course, it is all in good fun, and the women don't find this degrading, as we can see by the abundance of female participants we have here. Oh wait.

My Spanish is not quite good enough to know whether I just received a gendered insult from a moderator. Which he's now modified slightly, but it still has the word "perra" in it, which is a feminine word I'm getting translated as "bitch" (as in, it literally means a female dog). The idiomatic meaning of the overall phrase escapes me. Whether I'm associated with a "bitch" somehow or whether I am one.

But hey, everything's my fault and I can't be trusted.

Communication seems to be an ongoing problem. Instead of solving anything, misunderstandings and resentment continue. This is what is damaging the forum. Let's focus on what should be the central point of a music forum and not keep warming up the dead bodies. leave well enough alone....

Quote from: Madiel on October 13, 2024, 02:32:59 AMMy Spanish is not quite good enough to know whether I just received a gendered insult from a moderator. Which he's now modified slightly, but it still has the word "perra" in it, which is a feminine word I'm getting translated as "bitch" (as in, it literally means a female dog). The idiomatic meaning of the overall phrase escapes me. Whether I'm associated with a "bitch" somehow or whether I am one.

But hey, everything's my fault and I can't be trusted.

"Para ti la perra gorda" is a Spanish expression which means (roughly) "keep the change".

"Perra gorda" and "perra chica" were Spanish coins minted in the late 19th century, worth 10 and 5 cents of a peseta, respectively. I changed the idiom from "chica" to "gorda" because, even if both versions are used, I realised the latter is more common and easier to find in online translation tools that are available to anyone.

So, the gist of my message is "you get to have the last word" (and that is why I liked your subsequent message). And frankly, I cannot find a single insulting term addressed to you by me in this or any other thread.

But, again, para ti la perra gorda, Trevor.

Have a good night,

Rafael

Quote from: ritter on October 13, 2024, 02:12:10 AMOh, man. Para ti la perra gorda...  ::)

 :)

Quote from: ritter on October 13, 2024, 02:59:55 AM"Para ti la perra gorda" is a Spanish expression which means (roughly) "keep the change".

"Perra gorda" and "perra chica" were Spanish coins minted in the late 19th century, worth 10 and 5 cents of a peseta, respectively. I changed the idiom from "chica" to "gorda" because, even if both versions are used, I realised the latter is more common and easier to find in online translation tools that are available to anyone.

So, the gist of my message is "you get to have the last word" (and that is why I liked your subsequent message). And frankly, I cannot find a single insulting term addressed to you by me in this or any other thread.

But, again, para ti la perra gorda, Trevor.

Have a good night,

Rafael

I also initially thought it was an insult. It's good that this has been corrected and it makes it clear once again how difficult communication can be.

Quote from: Traverso on October 13, 2024, 03:04:26 AMI also initially thought it was an insult.

Well, it would have been easier for @ritter to just write "Whatever you say!", which is the correct, although not literal, English translation. Any misunderstanding would have been avoided. Alternatively, you could have googled it.  ;)

AFAIK, @ritter has no history of ever insulting anyone, neither when he was a simple member nor after he became a mod.

Quote from: Florestan on October 13, 2024, 03:11:04 AMWell, it would have been easier for @ritter to just write "Whatever you say!", which is the correct, although not literal, English translation. Any misunderstanding would have been avoided. Alternatively, you could have googled it.  ;)

AFAIK, @ritter has no history of ever insulting anyone, neither when he was a simple member nor after he became a mod.

Right, I do not comment any further on this,it might lead to abandon this forum.I better remain  posting in what are you listening...

Quote from: Traverso on October 13, 2024, 02:55:20 AMCommunication seems to be an ongoing problem. Instead of solving anything, misunderstandings and resentment continue. This is what is damaging the forum. Let's focus on what should be the central point of a music forum and not keep warming up the dead bodies. leave well enough alone....

Nothing new. Human relationships are characterized by unresolved tension, where each person seeks to assert their ego, which often leads to conflicts and misunderstandings. Each person is a subject, for whom others are objects of perception. Individuals project their expectations and fears onto others, which frequently leads to misunderstanding and alienation.

Martin Buber distinguished between two types of relationships: I-Thou and I-It. In I-Thou relationships, we can see the other person as a unique and complete individual, not separated; while in I-It relationships, we see the other as an instrument for our needs, which becomes the root of misunderstanding and resentment.

Speaking from my personal experience on this forum, I don't even begin to expect to be understood. Not natural, but normal.

Quote from: ritter on October 13, 2024, 02:59:55 AMAnd frankly, I cannot find a single insulting term addressed to you by me in this or any other thread.

Just the part where you keep either ignoring me or indicating that I'm lying. Plus I guess this large helping of sarcasm doesn't count.

QuoteOh, Madiel, it must be such a huge burden to be in constant possession of the truth! But, when one's memory is selective, then that responsibility becomes difficult to manage...

It isn't my memory that's selective. You see, I've actually gone back and read the relevant posts. I'm not relying on memory.

And now I really can have the last word.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 13, 2024, 03:26:51 AMNothing new. Human relationships are characterized by unresolved tension, where each person seeks to assert their ego, which often leads to conflicts and misunderstandings. Each person is a subject, for whom others are objects of perception. Individuals project their expectations and fears onto others, which frequently leads to misunderstanding and alienation.

Martin Buber distinguished between two types of relationships: I-Thou and I-It. In I-Thou relationships, we can see the other person as a unique and complete individual, not separated; while in I-It relationships, we see the other as an instrument for our needs, which becomes the root of misunderstanding and resentment.

Speaking from my personal experience on this forum, I don't even begin to expect to be understood. Not natural, but normal.

Ah.. you are familiar with "Ich und Du"  :)

Quote from: Traverso on October 13, 2024, 03:42:10 AMAh.. you are familiar with "Ich und Du"  :)

Familiarity would be an exaggeration.

Gentlemen, please, let's all take a deep breath and count to 100, before considering the obvious fact that the problems and challenges we face in the real world and our real lives are more numerous and more serious than who said what to whom on GMG and that a relaxed, nonchalant, live and let live approach in this respect is much better than constant bickering and recriminations.

Sorry, I really do not take kindly to my integrity being called into question.

Night.

Quote from: Florestan on October 13, 2024, 01:39:31 AMThe big irony in this is that among those who you so harshly rebuke for liking Madiel's post there are Karl and Kalevala, who later liked, and publicly commended, your post too. I wonder what do you make of it.  ;D

Yeah, they're fickle, aren't they? That was really what sponsored my tirade. Nothing Madiel said, just them liking his post.

AS brings up a good point that strict moderating might not save a forum if it is destined to die.

But I think that Florestan, AS, Todd, Madiel and maybe one or two others would prefer no moderation at all, which is obviously not the answer. Most posters don't want to see them derail thread after thread.

But perhaps a locked thread or room of trash where the posts can be easily read (something I did back when I first started) would be a compromise. At least on the ones that are not just obviously fighting. It's more like the inappropriate derailing into, say, US politics on the Unimportant News thread.

Quote from: DavidW on October 13, 2024, 06:05:32 AMBut I think that Florestan, AS, Todd, Madiel and maybe one or two others would prefer no moderation at all, which is obviously not the answer. Most posters don't want to see them derail thread after thread.

What a lovely straw man you just knocked over.

You know what? What I want is evidence that you stop and think. Right now I'm not getting it. I've explicitly said the exact opposite of the desire you're now attributing to me.

Quote from: DavidW on October 13, 2024, 06:05:32 AMBut I think that Florestan [...] would prefer no moderation at all

You know very well that this is not the case at all, David.

What I take issues with is this habit of some people here to constantly report posts which clearly do not personally insult anyone just because their content happens not to be to their liking. In not a few instances it has resulted in either unnecessary kerfuffle or, as in the case at hand, in somebody leaving the forum. And in not a few instances, without the behind-the-scene interference of the said people, the whole thing would have faded away quietly and unnoticed by anyone not involved in that particular discussion. They may have intended well but the unintended consequences of their actions were bad. We often hear it said here that words have consequences, which is true, but few of us seem to be aware that rashly and indiscriminately reporting whatever posts one doesn't like has consequences, too.

Beside, I can't help noticing that it unpleasantly reminds me of the climate of generalized suspicion and fear in which Romanians lived before 1989 when everybody was afraid that publicly saying something not in line with the Party's ideology and policies may result in some snitch reporting them to the secret police.

Quote from: DavidW on October 13, 2024, 06:05:32 AMAS brings up a good point that strict moderating might not save a forum if it is destined to die.

But I think that Florestan, AS, Todd, Madiel and maybe one or two others would prefer no moderation at all, which is obviously not the answer. Most posters don't want to see them derail thread after thread.

But perhaps a locked thread or room of trash where the posts can be easily read (something I did back when I first started) would be a compromise. At least on the ones that are not just obviously fighting. It's more like the inappropriate derailing into, say, US politics on the Unimportant News thread.

This seems like an idea worthy of discussion. A sub-forum where moderation might be applied only for instances of, say, personal attacks or other egregious acts, but not for simply expressing any given point of view.

Just my $.02...

I've said this before, but it seems necessary to say it again: I've been a moderator on a forum.

Believing that I don't want moderation at all is... I'm sorry, but it's unbelievably fucking stupid. I've done the job.

What has frustrated me for years on this forum is that in my opinion certain aspects of the job are done really fucking badly here. Only certain aspects. But one of THOSE aspects came up on this thread. I commented accordingly. People liked what I said. Now we've got a situation where what I said isn't a problem, just people liking it. Or something.

Right now I'm fully understanding the temptation to delete an account. Because you can have members quite openly trying to express a concern and you get a couple of moderators not showing the SLIGHTEST sign of actually paying attention to what's being said.

I don't quite know whether to laugh when the pair consists of the one who says I know the real reason for my last moderator interaction (but doesn't listen when I say yes, I do know the real reason, but that's not my issue), paired with the second who believed the fake reason the 1st moderator initially gave and acted upon it, creating a new Jimmy Fallon thread that didn't even have half the commentary on Jimmy Fallon but does contain me saying I don't know nearly enough about Jimmy Fallon to have a proper opinion about him.

Never mind not wanting to listen to me, you don't even listen to each other.

I repeat: I've been a moderator. That's why some of the fuck-ups annoy me. You don't fuck up all the time, but right now you're going all in.

Wow, I picked a bad week to be busy with work and travel!

Quote from: DavidW on October 13, 2024, 06:05:32 AMAS brings up a good point that strict moderating might not save a forum if it is destined to die.

What a lot of online communities are finding right now is that more moderation builds more lasting, durable groups of regular visitors, whereas in a low moderation environment, the small number of trolls who dominate people's perceptions and reactions will drive away many people who leave in silence.

Certainly in my own experience, if there is a shrinkage of GMG right now to a core group of about 50 regulars, it is down to three reasons: (1) the rise of other social media like Facebook, Reddit, TikTok, etc. and younger users' preferences for Reddit-like boards or social posts instead of forum software; (2) the current server/software problems that are blocking new users, causing PM glitches, etc; (3) a small number of bullies and trolls have, over the years, caused other people to quietly quit in frustration. On (3), I think everyone overestimates the frequency of loud and melodramatic quitting vs. people who simply get annoyed, sign out, and never come back.

People simply do not always complain loudly about what is bothering them, nor do they always report it. (Example: there are no reported posts about Yuja Wang in the log, so I do not know about the post Spotted Horses describes.)

We can do little about (1). We have written to Rob a number of times about (2) and hope he will be able to help when he has free time. With (3), we will be trying the temporary bans.

Quote from: LKB on October 13, 2024, 06:48:06 AMThis seems like an idea worthy of discussion. A sub-forum where moderation might be applied only for instances of, say, personal attacks or other egregious acts, but not for simply expressing any given point of view.

Just my $.02...

Speaking personally, not on behalf of other mods. It is all or nothing. If we are having a sub-thread "free for all," I do not want to moderate that at all. I will not want to police it for personal attacks or otherwise engage with it whatsoever. The only thing we would control for is actual criminal behavior. And I seriously question the wisdom of allowing that kind of truly unmoderated thread. If the forum software allows such a thread to be private, by voluntary opt-in membership only, then perhaps.

Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 13, 2024, 01:24:37 AMI looked at the WAYLT thread from Oct 11, 2024, and noted all of the users who made posts. By my count there were a total of 66 posts from 23 distinct users. I went to a point near the beginning of the thread, randomly selecting Oct 9, 2019. There were 55 posts from 21 distinct users. No significant difference. If anything, after five years there is slightly more participation. I would have gone back farther in time, but I don't know how to find the previous WAYLT threads (they were periodically restarted after they got too big for the server to handle). Search for them didn't work.

I was curious about this so I found them and did two dates each, five years apart. You can go to general discussion and sort all threads by # of replies.

Oct. 11, 2024: 66 posts from 23 users

Oct. 09, 2019: 55 posts from 21 users
Oct. 11, 2019: 47 posts from 24 users

Oct. 09, 2014: 68 posts from 28 users
Oct. 11, 2014: 63 posts from 29 users

Oct. 12, 2009: 44 posts from 16 users
Oct. 11, 2009: 31 posts from 16 users
(still active from 2009 to today: Erato, Sarge, Andre, Harry, SonicMan, Que, Florestan, Brian)

Quote from: Florestan on October 13, 2024, 06:39:31 AMWhat I take issues with is this habit of some people here to constantly report posts which clearly do not personally insult anyone just because their content happens not to be to their liking. ... rashly and indiscriminately reporting whatever posts one doesn't like has consequences, too. ... the climate of generalized suspicion and fear in which Romanians lived before 1989 when everybody was afraid that publicly saying something

Here is another place where I can answer with data! So far this year (9.5 months), there have been 19 reported posts. Several of these were NOT reported for rule violations. One was reported to get it moved. One person accidentally locked their own thread and reported it to ask us to unlock it.

I count 15 posts that were "actually" reported for violating the rules this year, and only 2-3 that we felt were "rash and indiscriminate." The other 12ish were in response to real issues.

So I disagree with you that one example every three months is "constantly."

Quote from: Brian on October 13, 2024, 07:14:09 AMI count 15 posts that were "actually" reported for violating the rules this year, and only 2-3 that we felt were "rash and indiscriminate." The other 12ish were in response to real issues.

15 posts reported by how many people?

Quote from: Florestan on October 13, 2024, 07:26:18 AM15 posts reported by how many people?

8

Quote from: Brian on October 13, 2024, 07:38:53 AM8

And what is the largest number of posts reported by a single person?

Quote from: Florestan on October 13, 2024, 07:41:27 AMAnd what is the largest number of posts reported by a single person?

Frequency of using the reporting system doesn't necessarily relate to quality. In fact, it may go the opposite direction; the most obviously silly report was by a person who reported no other posts and has only posted here twice all year.

Edit: But I don't see why it matters as that frivolous usage only affected us mods and was not visible to anyone else.

Quote from: Brian on October 13, 2024, 07:53:32 AMFrequency of using the reporting system doesn't necessarily relate to quality. In fact, it may go the opposite direction; the most obviously silly report was by a person who reported no other posts and has only posted here twice all year.

My impression was based on actual posts, discussions and claims in various threads. If data contradict me I stand corrected --- but not in the case of Spotted Horses, though, where I know for a fact that his post was reported because the very person who reported it publicly announced the move.

Perhaps it's time to set the record straight, as it would appear that the moderators are imposing a reign of terror on the forum. 

The moderation team has no interest in curtailing anyone's freedom of speech or crushing any opinions. Our job here is to try to ensure a smooth functioning of the forum.

The main areas in which we intervene are:

1) US politics: We all know where even the slightest, tangential reference to US politics usually leads to. The initial mention of some politician's or other's name might appear justified or harmless, but then someone replies, the discussion gets heated, and it all ends in tears. We've been through this, and I am surprised we have to explain it yet again.

2) Misogyny, sexism, and locker room talk in general: Some members seem to think that objectifying women, making lewd or unflattering remarks, etc. is somehow witty and OK. Well, no: this kind of attitudes is profoundly disrespectful to many members, particularly our female fellow GMGers, and will not be tolerated. We ask all members to understand this. It's also surprising that we have to remind members of this constantly. We're in 2024!

3) Discussions which are not about a specific issue, but rather an excuse to enter into an argument with a specific member. There are several of our fellow GMGers who seem to feel the need to engage in this sort of ad hominem discussions, and again, we all know how this ends (name calling, escalation, and reported posts —with us moderators being expected to clear up the mess after the event, as if we were some kind of school teachers). So, these occasions will generally be thwarted as soon as they arise.

@Florestan, I wanted to add the constant denigration of Wagner as another reason for swift action by the moderation, but my fellow moderators would have none of that!  :'(

Quote from: Brian on October 13, 2024, 07:14:09 AMPeople simply do not always complain loudly about what is bothering them, nor do they always report it. (Example: there are no reported posts about Yuja Wang in the log, so I do not know about the post Spotted Horses describes.)

You will find it here

https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,33488.msg1587119.html#msg1587119

It was the culmination of a series of posts where discussion of Yuja Wang gets progressively more vulgar. I have heard by PM from another member that it was brought to moderator attention, with no result. It might not have been done by pressing the "report to moderator" button, but by a PM to one or more moderators.

Quote from: DavidW on October 13, 2024, 05:59:43 AMYeah, they're fickle, aren't they? That was really what sponsored my tirade. Nothing Madiel said, just them liking his post.

Is it such an irony? Am I so fickle? Well, maybe I am fickle at times. One of the benefits of GMG over (say) Twitter is that a post can embrace a number of elements. To my mind, any post that includes the following is eminently likable:

Quote from: Madiel on October 11, 2024, 06:58:53 PMDuly noted. But I hope that we change direction sufficiently that you [spotted horses] feel tempted [to remain].

Quote from: DavidW on October 13, 2024, 05:59:43 AMYeah, they're fickle, aren't they? That was really what sponsored my tirade. Nothing Madiel said, just them liking his post.

Hey, if that tirade (which did not strike me as a tirade) sprang from my liking a post, I'm glad I done it.  😎

Oh for fuck's sake @ritter. "We all know how this ends" is exactly your fucking problem, because you play out a narrative in your head BEFORE something happens and make assumptions.

No matter how many times I tell you, you simply will not go and read the relevant posts and see that it bears out not only what I told you today, but I what told you then: it was not Todd who prompted me to post. I actually used the term "you all" which is clearly plural not singular.

Somebody who clings to a narrative in their head that does not align with the actual evidence that is still available in posts is not setting the record straight. They are wilfully refusing to do so.

You've just explicitly committed to prejudging a situation, leaping in with your hammer because you believe you've seen a nail. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SPOTTED HORSES AND I ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT.

Quote from: ritter on October 13, 2024, 08:28:27 AM@Florestan, I wanted to add the constant denigration of Wagner as another reason for swift action by the moderation, but my fellow moderators would have none of that!  :'(

You could silence me of course, but could you prevent Stravinsky's or Nietzsche's books from being read?  ;D

For the rest, I stand by my point that what we need is more detachment and nonchalance and less involvement and seriousness.

Quote from: Florestan on October 13, 2024, 06:39:31 AMthis habit of some people here to constantly report posts

I guess I'm somehow aloof to this. I had no idea any of us are in this habit.

Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 13, 2024, 08:32:00 AMYou will find it here

https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,33488.msg1587119.html#msg1587119

It was the culmination of a series of posts where discussion of Yuja Wang gets progressively more vulgar. I have heard by PM from another member that it was brought to moderator attention, with no result. It might not have been done by pressing the "report to moderator" button, but by a PM to one or more moderators.

You need to report it if you feel it needs reporting.

I've gone ahead and done that for you, if you haven't already.

Quote from: Madiel on October 13, 2024, 08:37:40 AMOh for fuck's sake @ritter. "We all know how this ends" is exactly your fucking problem, because you play out a narrative in your head BEFORE something happens and make assumptions.

No matter how many times I tell you, you simply will not go and read the relevant posts and see that it bears out not only what I told you today, but I what told you then: it was not Todd who prompted me to post. I actually used the term "you all" which is clearly plural not singular.

Somebody who clings to a narrative in their head that does not align with the actual evidence that is still available in posts is not setting the record straight. They are wilfully refusing to do so.

You've just explicitly committed to prejudging a situation, leaping in with your hammer because you believe you've seen a nail. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SPOTTED HORSES AND I ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT.

Taylor Swift, anyone?

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 13, 2024, 08:39:06 AMYou need to report it if you feel it needs reporting.

I've gone ahead and find that for you, if you haven't already.

done

Quote from: ritter on October 13, 2024, 08:40:42 AMTaylor Swift, anyone?

That's about as understandable as your Spanish phrase earlier.

Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 13, 2024, 08:43:01 AMdone

I had not seen that, but that is most definitely in poor taste, and is exactly the kind of commentary that drove many women posters away in the past because of the "good old boys' club".

Quote from: Karl Henning on October 13, 2024, 08:32:08 AMo my mind, any post that includes the following is eminently likable:

This is indeed a good point. Many posts contain multiple points and liking the post generally does not automatically imply liking all of them, and a Like is quicker and much less time consuming than quoting each point individually, although it might in some cases give the (false) impression of agreement with contradictory views.

Quote from: Madiel on October 13, 2024, 08:43:27 AMThat's about as understandable as your Spanish phrase earlier.

You should know which posts you've reported, and the reasons why...

And it would appear we will have to remind members that foul language is not permitted on the forum either. Your exasperation is probably as high as mine at this stage, but that does not justify certain expressions.

And since you've turned the issue of Jimmy Fallon into a matter of life or death, Madiel, read the thread again: I did not intervene after your initial post on the matter, I intervened when the discussion was starting to be a rhetorical duel  between you and the other poster. Taylor Swift, anyone?

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 13, 2024, 08:46:09 AMI had not seen that, but that is most definitely in poor taste, and is exactly the kind of commentary that drove many women posters away in the past because of the "good old boys' club".

I had seen those comments (there's more than one) right when they were freshly posted but for some reason failed to give my two cents, so here they are now. I find nothing objectionable in Yuja Wang's concert outfits. There's no reason for her to hide her youth and beauty. And those offended by her appearance can always close their eyes, not to mention their first option is not going to her concerts. But I think people go to her concerts first and foremost because of how she plays. The visual aspect is either a bonus or an embarrassment, depending on one's taste.

Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 13, 2024, 08:32:00 AMYou will find it here

https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,33488.msg1587119.html#msg1587119

It was the culmination of a series of posts where discussion of Yuja Wang gets progressively more vulgar. I have heard by PM from another member that it was brought to moderator attention, with no result. It might not have been done by pressing the "report to moderator" button, but by a PM to one or more moderators.

You can't let this one go, can you? Our friend gets on his (or her, since I don't know their gender) high horses accusing me of misogyny while totally missing my point that it is Yuja Wang who intentionally sexualizes herself with her glittery skin-tight miniskirts and 4-inch heels. The same could never be said of any number of superb female instrumentalists and conductors such as Martha Argerich, Beatrice Rana, Hillary Hahn, Mitsuko Uchida, Annie Fischer, Susanna Malkki, Natalie Stutzmann, Marin Alsop, Anne-Sophie Mutter, Juana Zayas, Yuki Matsuzawa, and the long list could go on and on. But with Yuja it could hardly be said that "only the music matters," and if she doesn't want to be thought of as a sex object then why does she present herself as one. Surely she cannot pretend her outfits in any way enhance her pianism; instead they often make her the subject of ridicule. And I am hardly alone in this perception. Critic Mark Swed wrote of her appearance at the Hollywood Bowl:

QuoteBut it was Yuja Wang's orange dress for which Tuesday night is likely to be remembered... Her dress Tuesday was so short and tight that had there been any less of it, the Bowl might have been forced to restrict admission to any music lover under 18 not accompanied by an adult. Had her heels been any higher, walking, to say nothing of her sensitive pedaling, would have been unfeasible.

Please don't create a caricature of me as "misogynist" when I refer to only one specific and egregious case which if anything sets back the cause of taking women seriously as musical artists. And what "result" would have satisfied you? Deleting all my posts? Banning me from the forum?

Quote from: ritter on October 13, 2024, 08:53:27 AMYou should know which posts you've reported, and the reasons why...

And it would appear we will have to remind members that foul language is not permitted on the forum either. Your exasperation is probably as high as mine at this stage, but that does not justify certain expressions.

And since you've turned the issue of Jimmy Fallon into a matter of life or death, Madiel, read the thread again: I did not intervene after your initial post on the matter, I intervened when the discussion was starting to be a rhetorical duel  between you and the other poster. Taylor Swift, anyone?

You intervened after exactly one reply, not a "duel". You also intervened with a false reason about the conversation being irrelevant rather than the real reason that you don't like me and Todd having any exchange whatsoever. The real reason took a 2nd go.

Again, your attitude of "we all know how this ends" leads you to make assumptions. I have now told you at least 5 times that on that occasion your assumption was completely wrong. Yet you persist. Either you think you can just ignore me or you think I'm a liar. Quite why you reached out to meet me in person in Madrid, when you clearly think so little of me, I've no idea.

But for my part, I think a person who repeatedly commits to leaping to a conclusion about knowing ahead of time how these things end is not suited to being a moderator.

Okay, I apologize for flying off the handle last night. I was not expecting this enormous thread. I was expecting Madiel to reply, and then to have some posters quietly liking his post and some liking mine. I am stupid. I should have seen this coming.

We might end up saying things we regret or are constantly to deal with insults.

Before that happens... let us take a breather. I'll leave the posts up to show that I am seriously listening to the criticism that I'm too trigger-happy at deleting posts without thinking enough about it.

But it is time for a temporary lock.

Okay thread unlocked.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 13, 2024, 09:23:18 AMYou can't let this one go, can you? Our friend gets on his (or her, since I don't know their gender) high horses accusing me of misogyny while totally missing my point that it is Yuja Wang who intentionally sexualizes herself with her glittery skin-tight miniskirts and 4-inch heels. The same could never be said of any number of superb female instrumentalists and conductors such as Martha Argerich, Beatrice Rana, Hillary Hahn, Mitsuko Uchida, Annie Fischer, Susanna Malkki, Natalie Stutzmann, Marin Alsop, Anne-Sophie Mutter, Juana Zayas, Yuki Matsuzawa, and the long list could go on and on. But with Yuja it could hardly be said that "only the music matters," and if she doesn't want to be thought of as a sex object then why does she present herself as one. Surely she cannot pretend her outfits in any way enhance her pianism; instead they often make her the subject of ridicule. And I am hardly alone in this perception. Critic Mark Swed wrote of her appearance at the Hollywood Bowl:

Please don't create a caricature of me as "misogynist" when I refer to only one specific and egregious case which if anything sets back the cause of taking women seriously as musical artists. And what "result" would have satisfied you? Deleting all my posts? Banning me from the forum?

In any concert the musician's stage presence is part of the performance, from Bernstein's pointless jumping up and down on the podium to Karajan's priest-like demeanor to Pollini's slapping page turners on the stage.  Yuja Wang would say she likes replacing the stultifying solemnly of the typical classical performance with a fun and exciting atmosphere, that the way she dresses feels liberating to her. And it brings attention to her artistry, not always the sort of attention that she wants. Your repeated comments, equating her to a woman selling sex for money, strikes me as a projection of misogynistic attitudes, that only modest, chaste women are deserving of respect.

Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 14, 2024, 06:33:46 AMIn any concert the musician's stage presence is part of the performance, from Bernstein's pointless jumping up and down on the podium to Karajan's priest-like demeanor to Pollini's slapping page turners on the stage.  Yuja Wang would say she likes replacing the stultifying solemnly of the typical classical performance with a fun and exciting atmosphere, that the way she dresses feels liberating to her. And it brings attention to her artistry, not always the sort of attention that she wants. Your repeated comments, equating her to a woman selling sex for money, strikes me as a projection of misogynistic attitudes, that only modest, chaste women are deserving of respect.

I find it very interesting that their prior quote, in extraordinary bad taste, is also still standing.

That tells us something, I suspect.

The sexism is in the assumption that a woman who dresses in a stylish manner is "intentionally sexualizing" herself. Unless there is an interview with Yuja Wang somewhere where she says explicitly that that is what she is doing? Otherwise, it is an assumption, an assumption grounded in a man's conviction that he knows how a woman should dress and he knows what a woman is thinking.

Last night I was reading a passage in Agatha Christie's memoir about how much women had to cover when they went to the beach, and how even the word "leg" was considered a sexual signal. She was taught as a child to call her legs her "lower limbs"! The problem of men feeling they can dictate how women's bodies appear in public is at least that old. As long as the eye of the beholder of a body is considered more important than the person who has the body.

If "misogynist" is too offensive, perhaps "beholder supremacist" might make the problem more clear.

Quote from: Brian on October 14, 2024, 07:10:39 AMThe sexism is in the assumption that a woman who dresses in a stylish manner is "intentionally sexualizing" herself. Unless there is an interview with Yuja Wang somewhere where she says explicitly that that is what she is doing? Otherwise, it is an assumption, an assumption grounded in a man's conviction that he knows how a woman should dress and he knows what a woman is thinking.

Last night I was reading a passage in Agatha Christie's memoir about how much women had to cover when they went to the beach, and how even the word "leg" was considered a sexual signal. She was taught as a child to call her legs her "lower limbs"! The problem of men feeling they can dictate how women's bodies appear in public is at least that old. As long as the eye of the beholder of a body is considered more important than the person who has the body.

If "misogynist" is too offensive, perhaps "beholder supremacist" might make the problem more clear.

And, yet, the post still stands.

Wang, who has done more for classical music than this entire forum combined entire existence - a whore.

How wonderfully droll and representative.

Quote from: Brian on October 14, 2024, 07:10:39 AMIf "misogynist" is too offensive, perhaps "beholder supremacist" might make the problem more clear.

No need to get fancy.  The word "sexist" works well enough.  Back to basics. 

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 14, 2024, 07:16:11 AMWang, who has done more for classical music than this entire forum combined entire existence - a whore.

Wang's treatment is more pronounced than some other female artists, but it happens with others.  If you were so inclined, you could find similar though less extreme comments about Hilary Hahn, on this very forum, with regard to several of her album covers.  Anna Gourari, too.  I do not recall if Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg has received such treatment here - she is in her 60s now, after all - but her commentary on this subject, going back decades, more or less confirms several openly sexist forms of behavior and commentary are the norm in the classical music world. 

Anyone who thinks that Wang looks particularly sexualized or whorish has a peculiarly outdated view of both women and sexuality.  It's quite Puritanical, really.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 13, 2024, 09:23:18 AMPlease don't create a caricature of me as "misogynist" when I refer to only one specific and egregious case which if anything sets back the cause of taking women seriously as musical artists.

It seems to me rather, to further the cause of women deciding themselves how they want to dress. As well as being a bold and liberating step.

Anyone who has been to a beach, a nightclub, a New Years eve party, knows that it is common for people to show much more skin than Yuja Wang does. What makes Yuja Wang's wardrobe bracing is that she wears it in a concert hall, where we expect to see female performers look like they stepped out of an Edith Wharton novel.

Thank you all for the gang-up. Must be a lot of fun for some of you, to pile up on poor old moi with all these straw-man arguments. And oh, you forgot the one where I was called a "half-wit." Surely you can get some mileage out of that.

If the goal is to hound me off the forum, you have failed. I am not leaving, nor will I start a lengthy thread to complain about how the board has degenerated (people have been saying the same thing for decades), or how hurt I am that some members are violating the rules (they always have, and always will), or how the moderators are either too trigger-happy or too lax in their moderating.

As for the Yuja issue, on my part there is no misogyny, Puritanism, sexism, "beholder suprematicism," or any of these other slurs you care to trot out. I would have the same objection if some hot young guy were to perform the Chopin etudes in a speedo. There is a reason why most concert artists dress neutrally, and that is so as not to distract attention from the music. We don't need to interview Yuja Wang to know she is dressing in a sexually provocative manner. The statement that "anyone who has been to a beach, a nightclub, a New Years eve party, knows that it is common for people to show much more skin than Yuja Wang does" is besides the point. We're not at a beach. There are tacit social conventions that govern how we all dress, speak, and behave in various environments. I'll never forget how at my boss's son's wedding one co-worker showed up in a t-shirt and jeans. It was perceived as disrespectful, and rightly so. And what has worked in the concert hall for the past hundred years continues to work.

Among the relevant good comments on the Pianoworld forum was this one:

QuotePeople are free to wear whatever they want, but there is a certain hypocrisy in denying that provocative dress is meant to provoke. It would be more honest to say that one is free to choose to resort to sex appeal while playing the piano because it advances one's career, sells more tickets, gets more views, makes many men happy. Because it does.
https://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/3001118/all/thoughts-on-yuja-wang-outfits.html

So keep up the attacks if you feel you must. They're very amusing, and I'm not going to complain to the moderators about how my tender feelings have been hurt. But maybe some of you ought to give some thought to what I'm saying, and not be so quick with the unfounded accusations.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 14, 2024, 12:48:35 PMAs for the Yuja issue, on my part there is no misogyny, Puritanism, sexism, "beholder suprematicism," or any of these other slurs you care to trot out.

Of course there is.  Your posts about Yuja Wang are openly and blatantly sexist.  Use of the word whore, in any fashion, to describe her is good, old-fashioned sexism.  You have opted to die on a hill named sexism.  That's fine.

If anyone is interested, there's an absolutely, breathtaking brilliant book on this subject: Cheng's Ornamentalism:


(https://image.ebooks.com/cover/209554703.jpg)

One of the best books I've read recently, and ACTUAL contemporary philosophy, unlike some nonsense you might have seen elsewhere.

Also, I don't think anyone wants anyone to leave.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 14, 2024, 12:48:35 PMI would have the same objection if some hot young guy were to perform the Chopin etudes in a speedo.

Exactly the how-would-you-like-it I was getting ready to reply myself - though I was also considering a Chippendales stripper-pants and bow-tie outfit.

Quote from: Mandryka on October 14, 2024, 01:28:15 PM

The clothes should go; the cars should remain.  (And point and shoot film cameras are enjoying a minor comeback.)

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 14, 2024, 01:05:44 PMAlso, I don't think anyone wants anyone to leave.

Of course not. Y'all need your punching bags.

Actually, what Yuja reminds me of is Nigel Kennedy doing his punk bit. Are those great Kennedy albums? I'll never know because they suggest he's put image first. If the cover is meant to reflect the content, then the content must be unserious.

I've cleaned up some recent posts in this thread.

Quote from: SimonNZ on October 14, 2024, 01:55:29 PMActually, what Yuja reminds me of is Nigel Kennedy doing his punk bit. Are those great Kennedy albums? I'll never know because they suggest he's put image first. If the cover is meant to reflect the content, then the content must be unserious.

I turned pages for the pianist when he played the Elgar Sonata. He gave a hell of a concert.

Quote from: SimonNZ on October 14, 2024, 01:55:29 PMActually, what Yuja reminds me of is Nigel Kennedy doing his punk bit. Are those great Kennedy albums? I'll never know because they suggest he's put image first. If the cover is meant to reflect the content, then the content must be unserious.

Kennedy's Four Seasons is the album that sold a zillion copies, and it's pretty good.


What's important IMO is that he drew a lot of non-classical listeners to buy a classical album, including teenage me back in the day. Whatever he did worked, and he definitely could back it up with playing.  :)

Quote from: SimonNZ on October 14, 2024, 01:55:29 PMActually, what Yuja reminds me of is Nigel Kennedy doing his punk bit. Are those great Kennedy albums? I'll never know because they suggest he's put image first. If the cover is meant to reflect the content, then the content must be unserious.

"Great" can be subjective, so I won't use the word. But he is serious about the music, and I think they're worth listening to.

Quote from: NumberSix on October 14, 2024, 02:47:58 PMWhatever he did worked, and he definitely could back it up with playing.

Indeed.  Ms Wang is even more famous for her technique than her outfits, at least to those who actually listen to her playing. 

Quote from: JBS on October 14, 2024, 02:52:22 PM"Great" can be subjective, so I won't use the word. But he is serious about the music, and I think they're worth listening to.

I've not heard all his recordings, but I very much like all those I've heard.

Quote from: Todd on October 14, 2024, 02:55:06 PMIndeed.  Ms Wang is even more famous for her technique than her outfits, at least to those who actually listen to her playing. 

Yep. I agree completely.

I saw Solerno-Sonnenberg play in Dallas about 30 years ago, I think. Maybe more recently, but it was a long time ago. She was definitely the Sexy Violin Babe of the day**, which is why I went probably. I wasn't really into classical then. I wanna say she played the Beethoven Concerto, but I am not sure.

At any rate, I remember having a great time. She was energetic and theatrical - and probably played great, though I wouldn't have really known if she had just been "okay".  But she got me to a recital. (See also: Netrebko in 2007) :-[

My point is that IMO there's nothing wrong with a little marketing to draw in the audience.


**who took her place? Mutter, maybe? She did seem to ratchet up the sex appeal in the 90s, based on her album covers.

For me, I always compared Wang to Han-Na Chang (Prokofiev's Sinfonia Concetante), a cellist, because they entered the scene with unparalleled virtuosity, and they "glittered" and "sparkled," but I never saw them as alluring, but perhaps I am not who they are trying to lure? I don't think I've really looked at any person with great skill as attractive or not. I think I'm simply too caught up being amazed by what they are doing. Haven't really thought about it too much.

Quote from: NumberSix on October 14, 2024, 03:04:56 PMI saw Solerno-Sonnenberg play in Dallas about 30 years ago, I think.

I saw her perform the Brahms VC around the same time.  It was a fine, intense, theatrical performance, and she would routinely stomp on the floor at the end of vigorous solo passages.  She's close to the opposite of the even better Hilary Hahn in my experience, who generally remains more poised and shoots death stares at the conductor and orchestra if they are not up to her standard.

Quote from: NumberSix on October 14, 2024, 03:04:56 PMMy point is that IMO there's nothing wrong with a little marketing to draw in the audience.

There's ample marketing of both men and women.  More than a few extra-handsome, non-rotund male singers have been dolled up with professional makeup and hair and glamour shots, too.  One can even find the occasional daring shot with the top couple shirt buttons undone without too much difficulty.  But Ms Wang, well some of her dresses and skirts are above the knee - the knee! - and she wears four-inch heels - four!! - so, you know, as has been revealed in GMG, the source of truth about all things classical music, she's just like a whore.  Sure, her Prokofiev smokes almost everyone other than Richter, but those outfits.  They're scandalous.

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 14, 2024, 03:15:19 PMFor me, I always compared Wang to Han-Na Chang (Prokofiev's Sinfonia Concetante), a cellist, because they entered the scene with unparalleled virtuosity, and they "glittered" and "sparkled," but I never saw them as alluring, but perhaps I am not who they are trying to lure? I don't think I've really looked at any person with great skill as attractive or not. I think I'm simply too caught up being amazed by what they are doing. Haven't really thought about it too much.

I have two of her recordings (the Prokofiev and Vivaldi) but never thought she was marketed that way. And she switched to being a conductor some years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han-na_Chang

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 14, 2024, 03:15:19 PMI don't think I've really looked at any person with great skill as attractive or not.

It only comes into play for me, occasionally, with opera, and then only with female leads.  An example would be Elīna Garanča. It helps her sell some roles, though her singing is the bomb.

Quote from: Todd on October 14, 2024, 03:28:54 PMIt only comes into play for me, occasionally, with opera, and then only with female leads.  An example would be Elīna Garanča. It helps her sell some roles, though her singing is the bomb.

I cannot stand that YouTuber, but I love her husband.

Hmmm. I'm definitely the wrong person for this. I say just get the best person for the role, but I get what you (and the rest) are saying.

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 14, 2024, 03:34:18 PMHI say just get the best person for the role, but I get what you (and the rest) are saying.

Absolutely, and Garanča is up there with the best vocally.  Anna Caterina Antonacci is an even better example as Cassandra, a role I have not heard bettered by anyone.  Back in 2015, had I been able to swing dates by a couple weeks, I could have seen her sing it live in San Francisco.  As it was, I had to settle for Susan Graham as Dido, and she showed why divas get the big bucks. 

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 14, 2024, 06:58:13 AMI find it very interesting that their prior quote, in extraordinary bad taste, is also still standing.

That tells us something, I suspect.

I am very much in favour of posts remaining standing, except in extreme cases (like the time on another forum we deleted a link to a site that favoured pedophilia).

It is not the case that moderation consists only of deleting things. Things can remain with a comment.

Having said that, this forum does cast doubt in my mind as we clearly all can't stop talking about something when it hasn't been deleted. But I tend to think that is because the middle ground is absent. We don't often get the kind of message that would resolve a matter. Instead we either get deletion or a perception that nothing at all was done.

Sometimes this is because the moderators try doing thing behind the scenes. The problem with this is when people want to SEE evidence that a thing was noticed and action was taken.

Deleting something that's in bad taste? Hmm. I haven't even looked at it to see how bad the taste is, but I would think the main response to something in bad taste is to say it's in bad taste. Though preferably once, clearly, from a moderator, not over and over again forever after from the entire gallery.

Quote from: Todd on October 14, 2024, 03:44:14 PMAs it was, I had to settle for Susan Graham as Dido, and she showed why divas get the big bucks. 

She's a wonderful singer and also (from the tiny bit of time that I was lucky to be around her) a lovely person.

K

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 14, 2024, 03:34:18 PMI cannot stand that YouTuber, but I love her husband.

Hmmm. I'm definitely the wrong person for this. I say just get the best person for the role, but I get what you (and the rest) are saying.

Elina and Elizabeth


LeSigh

By the way, a man in speedos is only functionally equivalent to a woman in a bikini. Not a woman in any form of evening dress.

I considered whether I would want to watch a musician perform in either of these kinds of swimwear and the answer is no.

Edit: but if a man decides to perform wearing a sleeveless top, call me.

Quote from: NumberSix on October 14, 2024, 04:29:48 PMElina and Elizabeth

LeSigh

I just cannot make it through her videos. She hems and haws for so long, as I said, I love her husband (he does a video each April 1, and I like her in those videos, as you can her laughing the entire time).

She also seems like a super nice person, so that's cool as well. 8)

Quote from: Madiel on October 14, 2024, 04:00:02 PMDeleting something that's in bad taste? Hmm. I haven't even looked at it to see how bad the taste is, but I would think the main response to something in bad taste is to say it's in bad taste.

Oh go ahead, read it. Then you too can join in the attack.

I'd be interested to know whether Ms. Wang feels her outfit affects her mood and energy, affects the way she plays. I.E. if she might dress for the impact it makes on herself.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 14, 2024, 07:43:03 PMOh go ahead, read it. Then you too can join in the attack.

What if I don't want to?

Given what I've said above, if (emphasis on if) you made comments that went too far, my preferred course would've been for a moderator, clearly putting their moderator hat on, to state that that sort of comment shouldn't be made.

As I'm largely immune to feminine wiles there's a limit to what I can say about whether a woman's dress is too provocative. Though I agree with the post that pointed out some of this has to do with specific expectations for the concert hall that are probably outdated (and maybe anachronistic given the stories of what used to happen when Liszt performed).

My other small observation is that, with my VERY limited knowledge of how female prostitutes dress, I don't think most of them dress very stylishly.

But whether I think your views/mental anssociations are correct is a different question to whether I think you should be attacked for saying how you react.

Finally, I don't know if anyone's considered the sheer practicality of an outfit. I know of at least one pianist who, while dressing in a completely different style to Yuja Wang, absolutely considered freedom of movement in the design of their concert outfits. People dress both for how they look AND how they feel.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 14, 2024, 01:36:29 PMOf course not. Y'all need your punching bags.

No one is punching you. Accusations of sexism seem unnecessary to me. People see things differently, everyone has their own criteria and boundaries of what is acceptable. Some people are bothered by Yuja Wang's outfits, as it clearly the case with you, while others are not, like me (as I mentioned right away in the original thread). As for questionable outfits or projected images, did it really start with Yuja? What would you say, for example, about this (https://youtu.be/YEtWYoAQs04?si=rTTBex3qy_coQc2X)?

Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 14, 2024, 10:28:52 PMLol.

I cannot believe they got anyone to do that.

Is that a pool floaty?

Don't ask me. I have a few things to say about this video in particular and about Mrs.N in general that will earn me an immediate lifelong ban from this forum 8)

Quote from: Madiel on October 14, 2024, 04:00:02 PMDeleting something that's in bad taste? Hmm. I haven't even looked at it to see how bad the taste is, but I would think the main response to something in bad taste is to say it's in bad taste. Though preferably once, clearly, from a moderator, not over and over again forever after from the entire gallery.

Yes, this. I don't agree with @(poco) Sforzando 's opinion but I think he's perfectly entitled both to have and to express it. Relentlessly castigating him for exercising what I should have thought was a basic right in a free society strikes me as very odd and very alarming. Are we heading towards a society where everybody should think and speak the same way and nobody dares to think and speak differently for fear of being relentlessly reprimanded as an enemy of the people? Been there, done that so thanks but no, thanks.

Quote from: steve ridgway on October 14, 2024, 09:22:18 PMI'd be interested to know whether Ms. Wang feels her outfit affects her mood and energy, affects the way she plays. I.E. if she might dress for the impact it makes on herself.

I think that is not far from her attitude. She delights in defying expectations, as she expresses it. She highlights a quote from an interview on her web site, "If the music is beautiful and sensual, why not dress to fit.?"

https://yujawang.com/yuja-wang-if-the-music-is-beautiful-and-sensual-why-not-dress-to-fit/

Quote from: Florestan on October 14, 2024, 11:11:17 PMYes, this. I don't agree with @(poco) Sforzando 's opinion but I think he's perfectly entitled both to have and to express it. Relentlessly castigating him for exercising what I should have thought was a basic right in a free society strikes me as very odd and very alarming. Are we heading towards a society where everybody should think and speak the same way and nobody dares to think and speak differently for fear of being relentlessly reprimanded as an enemy of the people? Been there, done that so thanks but no, thanks.

Please, does everything have to come back to Romanian communism? No one is sending Mr. Rinkle to prison. The rules of the site say you must be polite and considerate, and it is not polite, considerate to the women on this site to call a brilliant performer a whore because she dresses in fancy clothes, particularly because calling a woman a whore is a traditional canard used to denigrate women who do not conform to restrictive gender roles.

Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 15, 2024, 12:18:13 AMPlease, does everything have to come back to Romanian communism?

I'm sorry but I can't help noticing that several features of and trends within present-day Western society are alarmingly similar.

Yeah. GMG is not a country. We don't have any kind of separation of powers, but neither does any other forum.

One of the characteristics of freedom of speech, though, is that it tends to include the ability of one ordinary citizen to say, within limits, that what another ordinary citizen said or did was pretty shit. Many of the limits are not legal ones but societal ones.

It is always a mistake to think that freedom of speech means freedom from any consequences. It only ever means freedom from punishment by the state.

Quote from: Madiel on October 15, 2024, 02:13:24 AMOne of the characteristics of freedom of speech, though, is that it tends to include the ability of one ordinary citizen to say, within limits, that what another ordinary citizen said or did was pretty shit. Many of the limits are not legal ones but societal ones.

Agreed on all counts, but when an ordinary citizen says shit in two posts and a group of other ordinary citizens rebuke and ridicule him in two pages and counting, something's amiss.

Quote from: Florestan on October 15, 2024, 02:36:14 AMAgreed on all counts, but when an ordinary citizen says shit in two posts and a group of other ordinary citizens rebuke and ridicule him in two pages and counting, something's amiss.

Yes, I agree with you there. But in my view, that's not because there's some kind of repression a la Communist Romania. Quite the opposite. It's because of a lack of cultural limits, and because the moderators don't say anything.

Honestly, I consider one of the major reasons that forum members take it upon themselves to police something is because they don't see our actual "police" doing it. I've certainly had that feeling from time to time. There have definitely been times that I have said something against a bad post because not only do I think that something ought to be said, but because I think the people who ought to be saying it aren't.

I mean, even if the moderators spoke up and said no, they don't agree that the bad post was bad, that would be meaningful. I can think of one past situation where a moderator gave me the impression that they agreed with me about a post I considered really objectionable... and yet no other action was taken... and it took several days before anybody finally said that actually no, they didn't agree with me that the post was all that bad. When it finally became clear that I didn't have support for my view, I stopped.

I think we get situations where lots of people keep saying that a post is bad, both because that sense of there being no "official" view continues, and also because nobody official steps in and says "okay, enough". Both the mob developing and the mob persisting.

Edit: See, the proposition that I want no moderation couldn't be further from the truth. I want more light touch moderation that's visible, and a lot less of posts being deleted or moved to magically created threads. Even when it comes to the moderators thinking that a thread has gone off-topic, a far more effective thing would be to instruct the people who want that discussion to go and create a thread, themselves.

All very valid points, but the thing is that the objectionability of the initial post (or, rather, of the overall tone that the discussion was taking) that has led to this uproar was pointed out soon after it was posted. Granted, it was not deleted, but it does seem paradoxical that this issue is being discussed so vehemently in a thread started by a valued member who had left the community after a thread post of his had been deleted (in his opinion, wrongly so, but in that of the moderators and many other members, the deletion was justified). So, moderators are berated both when they delete posts, and when they do not.

Quote from: Todd on October 14, 2024, 01:31:14 PMThe clothes should go; the cars should remain.  (And point and shoot film cameras are enjoying a minor comeback.)

I like the cars and I like the hat.

You're putting a lot of time into this aren't you @ritter @Dave W !

Quote from: ritter on October 15, 2024, 03:07:33 AMAll very valid points, but the thing is that the objectionability of the initial post (or, rather, of the overall tone that the discussion was taking) that has led to this uproar was pointed out soon after it was posted. Granted, it was not deleted, but it does seem paradoxical that this issue is being discussed so vehemently in a thread started by a valued member who had left the community after a thread of his had been deleted (in his opinion, wrongly so, but in that of the moderators and many other members, the deletion was justified). So, moderators are berated both when they delete posts, and when they do not.

Cultural change takes time. Keep at it.

Half my point is that we've currently got a culture where only deletion is seen as action. So because you didn't delete the post, you did nothing. That view has kind of been expressed in this thread, and that was part of my starting point earlier today. I personally think the forum will operate a lot better if people stop thinking that moderation consists of deleting things and moving things, and stop expecting to see deletions.

As I've already said, I think that deletion should be quite limited. Advocating pedophilia, yes (that happened only a couple of weeks into my time as moderator, boy was that fun).

Quote from: Madiel on October 15, 2024, 02:58:09 AMYes, I agree with you there. But in my view, that's not because there's some kind of repression a la Communist Romania.

Repression can have many form, not only political. There's also societal repression. Mob repression. Group repression. Family repression. What they have in common is the desire for, and enforcement of, uniformity and conformity in thought, speech and action.

But this is a long discussion and this thread is already way too long --- and also long derailed. My contribution to it ends here.

Quote from: Mandryka on October 15, 2024, 03:08:00 AMI like the cars and I like the hat.

You're putting a lot of time into this aren't you @ritter @Dave W !

I am sorry, I have stopped understanding much of what is being said over the past few pages of this thread.

If you comment about our time is bona fide, then, well, many thanks!; if it is ironic, then I must inform you that I work for a living, and dedicate as much time to the forum as I can.

As for cars, hats and clothes remaining or going, I do not have the foggiest idea what that is all about. If someone cares to enlighten me, that would be great (and then we can decide whether moderator action is required).

What I can say is that links to porn sites will be removed as soon as they are detected, as I understand happened last night (European).

Best

Quote from: Florestan on October 15, 2024, 03:16:20 AMRepression can have many form, not only political. There's also societal repression. Mob repression. Group repression. Family repression. What they have in common is the desire for, and enforcement of, uniformity and conformity in thought, speech and action.

Yeah. If you expected Western societies wouldn't have that, you were sorely misinformed.

Quote from: ritter on October 15, 2024, 03:16:35 AMIf you comment about our time is bona fide, then, well, many thanks!; if it is ironic, then I must inform you that I work for a living, and dedicate as much time to the forum as I can.

 

I just can see it's taking up a lot of your time, that's all.  This thread.  And the tone is getting tetchy too.

Quote from: Madiel on October 14, 2024, 09:52:06 PMWhat if I don't want to?

I commend your restraint. But you're missing a heaven-sent opportunity to insult and belittle another member of the forum.

Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 15, 2024, 12:18:13 AMThe rules of the site say you must be polite and considerate.

Ah yes, politeness. This forum is overflowing with politeness:

QuoteAh, good old misogyny, the wit of halfwits. (Daverz)

Of course there is.  Your posts about Yuja Wang are openly and blatantly sexist.  Use of the word whore, in any fashion, to describe her is good, old-fashioned sexism.  You have opted to die on a hill named sexism.  That's fine. (Todd)

I feel smothered by all the politeness. Politeness here is evidently a one-way street, to be required of me while others may indulge themselves however they like.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 15, 2024, 03:31:35 AMI commend your restraint. But you're missing a heaven-sent opportunity to insult and belittle another member of the forum.

There are only so many hours in the day.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 15, 2024, 03:44:57 AMAh yes, politeness. This forum is overflowing with politeness:

I feel smothered by all the politeness. Politeness here is evidently a one-way street, to be required of me while others may indulge themselves however they like.

You engaged in writing bordering on the libelous by describing Wang as whorish, and after your blatant sexism was noted, you whine.  Perhaps in your mind your thoughtful, informed, taste-centric posts were polite. 

I encourage you to write thoughtful, informed, and tasteful posts in the future.

Quote from: Todd on October 15, 2024, 03:57:05 AMI encourage you to write thoughtful, informed, and tasteful posts in the future.

I encourage you to do the same.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 15, 2024, 04:02:28 AMI encourage you to do the same.

Thank you.  Mutual encouragement is a sign of civility and culture and wisdom and so forth.

Quote from: Todd on October 15, 2024, 03:57:05 AMYou engaged in writing bordering on the libelous . . . .

As for the above:

QuoteThere are some people who are in the public spotlight, who must endure the opinions and publications of the public, largely without recourse. Statements made about people such as government officials, political candidates, celebrities, sports players, and authors, are usually exempt from claims defamation, whether the claims are libelous or slanderous. This is true even if the statements, or pictures, are untrue and damaging. If, however, untrue statements are made about such a public person with malice, or with hate and a desire to cause harm with no regard for the truth, the public person may have a right to bring a civil lawsuit.

https://legaldictionary.net/libel/#ftoc-heading-5

If Ms. Wang wishes to bring an action against me, I will be sure to lawyer up.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 15, 2024, 04:12:32 AMIf Ms. Wang wishes to bring an action against me, I will be sure to lawyer up.

There is no doubt that Ms Wang will not take legal action against you as your posts about her are objectively irrelevant, just as there is no doubt that you think your posts about her have substance.

Based on the concept of the life cycle of a system, the stage of mutual accusations marks the end of the phase of rigidity and loss of flexibility. Then comes a period of senility, followed by death.

It seems to me that this conversation has run its course, and has degenerated into an exercise of finger-pointing, whataboutery, and ad hominem arguments (a pity, as there was momentarily hope for "civility and culture and wisdom"  ;) ). I will lock the thread temporarily.

I was not in favor of Poco's post, but I am in favor of AS's nuanced take on the matter, and I'm not in favor of Poco being harrassed for pages.

I think that Spotted Horses first brought it up, not because he wanted to form a lynch mob after Poco, but because he wanted to highlight what he considered unfair treatment from us, the moderating team. As far as that goes, some posts are on-topic, and some are using every excuse to flog Poco.

The criticisms and frustration about how we handle things and problematic issues with the forum policy have been brought to our attention. We are discussing them. And I thank you for sharing your concerns, and I'm especially glad to see that instead of posters quietly leaving.

But I think all relevant points have been made, and any further discussion will not be fruitful. There has already been lewd content on this thread, and there has been too much harassing of Poco.

To reiterate where we started, I do hope that Spotted Horses stays.