Report-back: any comments?

[french frank]

Views of the volunteer ‘committee’

1. Purpose and aims of the forum.

Accepted that the forum should not drift away from our shared interest, Radio 3; and that we should be proactive in promoting the output of Radio 3, and encouraging critical discussion about it.

The social networking aspects of the forum were not favoured. The BBC boards banned the exchange of contact details which seems extreme, but perhaps The Radio 3 Forum should respect the priority given to discussion rather than the social aspects? PMs are considered the most acceptable, enabling individual members to contact each other privately. But the membership is still quite small, so fragmenting into smaller social groups might risk weakening the community. Is there a strong objection to switching off Friends/Visitor Messaging? (Facebook is disabled by default)

2. Organisation and moderation

Suggest that each forum has ‘hosts’ who ensure that new topics (esp. re Radio 3) are posted and keep an eye on what’s going on within the forum. We have Global and Lat for world music, Calum for jazz, DracoM and ardcarp for The Choir/Choral Evensong, Uncle Monty, Eine Alpensinfonie, johnb and StephenO for CD Review/BaL and Performance. Arts & Ideas has always had several interested parties (Simon, tony yyy, Calum, and several others). Of course, the more people who participate in this, the better: it’s just that the people named have expressed willingness to participate as a start.

Should we flag up that the forum is ‘reactively moderated’ and respond only to Reported Posts or complaints via PMs (Reported Posts currently go automatically to french frank and Mark via email)? At this stage do we need a team of moderators? We have a lot of community spirit at the moment but this may not last. ‘Flaming’ and repeated disruption of topics will probably be the main problems. Certain measures (e.g. banning a member) are carried out only by the administrators but the decision to ban should be made by those with moderator's privileges.

Shall we see what problems arise and gradually formulate moderation rules, as necessary?

3. Development of the forum.

While we’re settling in, it has seemed best to retain the original forums from the BBC boards. However, we can add new boards (perhaps a BaL board, a Discovering Music board, a Hear & Now board, a Proms board &c). The Breakfast MB might be one in due course to discard? It was obviously originally intended to market the programme when it first started and provide somewhere for the presenters to get material to use on air. It is the least flourishing one, and mainly moans ...

Next job will be to introduce links to the Radio 3 website (home, Listen Live, Listen Again) and perhaps a News button to link to an area where forum matters could be aired. There is a temporary problem here which will take a little time to sort out.

The Committee Room is no longer password protected - for those who want to plough through the sessions and see what was written and what’s been left out of the above that shouldn’t have been.

[Anna]

Can I reply. Although I am not entitled. I remember the old CMo3 way back, was it 2004 or 2005 when it was such a vibrant community and the Hosts used to play such a vital part in discussions.

I dropped out after the Nth revisioning and, to be honest, a lot of dubious posts.

I only join in the CMA thread, because it it fun. I would really like to see some indepth disucussiion of say, Purcell or Shostakovich as in the old days

I dislike presenter bashing and the fact that someone may have said Janacek with the wrong syllable. I do it all the time! Syllable, not bashing.

I also dislike photos and weird text. PMs are good, although those of us on the old R3 boards managed to do it with emails!

Hosts are good. Is King KennyTone around?

What it seems to me, is that the r3ok need some kind of rocket to actually ignite this message board. In other words, it's just too middle class and elderly blokes with smoked haddock after Evensong

[Il Grande Inquisitor]

I've had a brief read through the 'committee room' pages and wish to offer my thanks to all those who contributed. I agree with the general consensus of discussions. Regarding moderation, as a long time member of r3ok, I feel the election of a trio of mods there has usually worked well. However, if we're having Hosts for each board here, I'd be happy to have them act as moderators for that particular board, at least for a trial period to see how it goes.

P.S. Johnb's suggestion of assassination squads and torture chambers certainly attracted attention... just the sort of thing of which the Inquisition approves!!

[french frank]

Can I reply. Although I am not entitled.

Anna, mein Kind, why should you not be entitled? Surely you go back to the closing of the old Classical Forum? I think that we (I?) have tried to make this in its basic sense (nothing to do with who or what) a successor to the BBC boards. So, open to everyone, and with that goes the necessity that it could (eventually) be a lot bigger than it is and could have a greater mix of antipathetical posters. Differences of opinion, basic beliefs, temperaments, values. I feel that that's right, and we shouldn't be aiming for a cosy little family. In the early days, I think the BBC boards worked. Goodness knows how. Perhaps because there was an unspoken acceptance that certain boundaries shouldn't be crossed. For the moment I think we have that again, and because we're in control, perhaps we can preserve it. But it may be difficult, and even one awkward person can rock the boat. (But I love discussing word stress, pronunciation, etymologies, comparative morphology!)

Thanks, IGI. I'm wondering whether the mere presence of 'Hosts' will 'moderate' behaviour. Should hosts be given that title (with or without special powers)? Sitting here with all my gold braid does serve the function that people know who to contact if they need help, want to complain or whatever. But for that, I'd prefer everyone to be just an Ordinary Member. But Host is quite a welcoming title, I think. Perhaps Moderators don't need to be identified (I don't mean they should be anonymous, just that they don't need to carry the title around with them)?

[Simon]

I'm for the pragmatic method of leaving things alone until one sees if they need changing. I'm reactive, rather than proactive. we seem to be on to a good thing here, and so once a change is deemed necessary, then let's do it. Or rather, let someone trustworthy do it. That means you, I suppose, if you will - sorry! - but I think you may find that everyone trusts you. [ Benign dictatorships work better than committees. ]

With that in mind, how long have we been running and how many complaints have you had? Not many, I believe. And provided that we don't feed trolls, it should stay that way, IMO.

Congrats on a sterling job - remarkable! And thanks, of course, too - most sincerely!

[Cellini]

As I have been (and still am) out of town, I haven't really seen much information on what the rules are. I presume they are a bit more free than the BBC boards but still rule out things such as the "F" word and others?

I seem to remember we often got away with a few naughty jokes on the old boards ...

As long as the new moderators act with more understanding and intellgence than the BBC ones, there really shouldn't be a problem.

If this all sounds silly and obvious then just ignore it. I am after all just suffering from a bit too much sun (it's about 28C here and very humid ...)

But the food and wine is quite wonderful ... as is the scenery!!

(Trying not to make you all jealous).

[Eudaimonia]

fragmenting into smaller social groups might risk weakening the community. Is there a strong objection to switching off Friends/Visitor Messaging?

Yes, I'm using my "visitor messaging" quite heavily: at over 814 visits, I would miss it terribly.

The great thing about visitor messages is that nobody has to see them unless they specifically seek them out. Another reason I think this is a wonderful feature is that it keeps off-topic posts out of the way of people who are annoyed by them, and leaves the forum itself to focus on music and R3. In effect, it keeps the priority on discussion as the committee wants. Why take it away if it's a) not hurting anything, b) nobody sees it if they don't want to, and c) it's actively keeping the forum harmonious and tidy?

I don't think it fragments or detracts from anything at all: the tiny handful of people who pop by to see what I've written spend far more time communicating with others on the board in substantial discussions. You could count my regular correspondents on one hand, but the ones who do come by every single day. It's much more efficient than private messages, not to mention a whole lot of fun for everyone involved.

I think if the committee thought about it, they would probably be quite happy if I stayed holed up in my cheery little invisible corner like the proverbial aunt hidden away in the attic.

[Pianorak]

. . . I'm wondering whether the mere presence of 'Hosts' will 'moderate' behaviour.

In future, will there be someone to 'moderate' the behaviour of the 'hosts'? Someone's strange sense of humour may well be another person's rather brusque, not to say rude, put-down. I know it's a difficult one - but the question just crossed my mind, so I thought why not ask.

[salymap]

Iwould miss Friends/Visitors messages very much although I don't use them every day. I have email contact with some of my MB friends, but not all. Antongould in particular writes to me quite a lot and music figures largely in our discussions. It is semi-private,in that one knows that most people wouldn't both to access it and I still haven't really got down to sending 'PMs' although I have received several. We all know we are here because of ourlove of music and R3 but does everyone want to hear about our boiler and window problems?

[french frank]

but does everyone want to hear about our boiler and window problems?

Well, there has to be some reason why everyone wanted to invite you to their New Year dinner, saly!

In future, will there be someone to 'moderate' the behaviour of the 'hosts'? Someone's strange sense of humour may well be another person's rather brusque, not to say rude, put-down.

Some would say that admin/mods/hosts should hold back from the discussions, but at this stage we're probably all here because we want to participate. In the case you mention the solution might be for a quiet PM from Mod to Host, but even that could cause offence! Oh, dear, it seems we might have been rather lucky to make it this far without major ructions!

I wish I could think of an all purpose slogan like Wikipedia's 'Always assume good faith' - something on the lines of 'Disagree politely' (and ban the comment 'Don't feed the troll'/DFTT because, unlike on the BBC boards, we do have other ways of dealing effectively with genuine trolls, while not all awkward cusses are trolls anyway).

Euda - yes, I take your point about removing the more personal chatter from the main forums (we obviously didn't realise what we're being 'spared'!). Obviously, none of the Committee Room volunteers were chatterers. I wonder if it's possible to switch off as default, and allow people to override and opt in, instead of the other way round? People don't always find their way round their profile settings and are taken aback to find VMs and Friendship requests.

I'll have to find a way of testing that without risking all the stuff that's already there, though.