Future of this Forum - for AGM on Saturday

[MaryR]

At the risk of repeating myself, we need to give some thought to the staffing of the forum. As we saw last Saturday, when both moderators are otherwise engaged in other matters it is possible for things to blow up. Perhaps it is no longer sufficient or prudent to rely on two volunteers to cover this.

Musicus, rest assured that the trustees will take this into consideration. I, for one, am very grateful for the work of Admin and the moderators. I realise you all have day jobs (and lives!).

SOP, I will enquire about wi-fi, but I'll bring my lap top in any event as I have a dongle.

[mcb]

I seem to have missed all the fun - turned my back for a few moments and Mayhem!

Is that Kevin Mayhem?

[musicus]

For information: your moderators already have the power to exclude ('ban') posters, either temporarily ('time-out', eg 24 hours, a week etc) or permanently.

Actually I was thinking of something milder: excluding someone from a particular thread that's become overheated. It needn't even be presented as a ban: I hope you don't mind if I ask you to sit this one out now and let other people have their say.

Well, that's an option, of course. Not sure that the most determined would respond, though. The forum's software won't allow temporary exclusion at the topic level, unfortunately.

[Peter]

Given the large number of threads that contain very useful discussion, presented in a cogent and civilised manner, with a lot of genuine good humour thrown in, it would be very a great shame if this forum were to be closed down or curtailed just because of a few threads where a bit of bickering has got tediously out of hand. This forum is normally the first one I turn to every day and I enjoy the comments whether I know the identities of the posters or not. If I ever feel tempted to identify posters by their real names it is more often than not because they come across as such delightful people that I would like to meet them in real life.

Surely the rules as they stand are sufficient to allow moderators to warn those whose posts get out of hand and remove them if warnings go unheeded? A slight problem is that the rules are tucked away in another part of the Forum and only readable to those signed in at the time: could they be made more visible at other times so that people are aware of the expected standard of behaviour?

On the (comparatively few) threads that have got out of hand, the reason tends to be that one poster feels that he has been personally and unreasonably slighted and needs to defend himself in order to preserve his good name. Surely the true Christian response to such situations is to be found in Mt. 26:63 (first sentence)?

[Calum Cille]

Having now ensconced myself in a new parish, I have taken the time to review the House Rules posted under Liturgy Matters, which is the only section of the forum I have been active in.

"Please post in a way that is respectful of other users. Flaming or abusing other users will not be tolerated."

My experience of this forum is that abusing other users is in fact tolerated if you are a certain person (eg, Southern Comfort's ad hominem attack at viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1367#p18768, which, like other of his ad hominem attacks on me, remains both uncensored and uncommented upon by name by a moderator viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1367#p18794). My experience is also that abusing other users is not tolerated if you are a nobody like me (the complete removal of all content of my recent discourse with Nick Baty by a moderator). Not only that, but my experience is that, when abused, I am socially isolated by other forum members, either through direct (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1367&start=15#p18808) or indirect (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1367&start=15#p18808) criticism or lack of support (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1367#p18794) or jokes at the expense of others (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1367#p18791). Poor me.

Being aware that the stated date of the Society of Saint Gregory AGM has passed, and being aware that the ad hominem attacks made on me by Southern Comfort apparently are to be viewed by the generality on the forum as trifles, compared to any flaming ad hominem attack I make on Nick Baty (thank you, Nick, for the opportunity to discuss that issue with you in that way) which is to be censored, I am now convinced that I have no wish to join the Society of Saint Gregory or to continue contributing to the forum. Poor me.

If certain of the societal values of the forum as practised are at all representative of the Society, the Society does not share my values, either in terms of censorship or members' input, being demonstrative of too much partiality or inequity or juvenile behaviour or simple selfishness when problems arise. Poor me. I don't therefore expect this forum's membership to agree with my conclusions about forum behaviour and lack of equitable censorship and I have decided that the disadvantages of supporting, through participation, a forum which is governed in this way outweigh the advantages. I will not be advising others in Scotland to join the Society of Saint Gregory while nobodies such as myself are permitted to be exposed to such unwarranted yet uncensored contempt.

Peter made a particular comment at viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1373&start=45#p19099.

On the (comparatively few) threads that have got out of hand, the reason tends to be that one poster feels that he has been personally and unreasonably slighted and needs to defend himself in order to preserve his good name. Surely the true Christian response to such situations is to be found in Mt. 26:63 (first sentence)?

Matthew 26:63 reads, "But Jesus was silent."

That silence was also defensive but in a situation in which our Lord's life was at particular peril. Whether Peter would or would not wish me just to shut up and not defend myself from ad hominem attacks, there is another occasion on which our Teacher was criticised when his life was in less dire peril and when he gave a different 'Christian' response.

Matt 12:36 reads, "I tell you, on the day of judgement men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

Permitting abuse, and castigating its victims and supporters for criticising such abuse, seems popular in certain corners. The partiality on this forum has already seen NorthernTenor silent since he, solitarily, stood up clearly for me against the afore-mentioned ad hominem verbal abuse of me by Southern Comfort. There can be a place for factual discussion on this forum, and for opinion, but not when ad hominem attacks attempt to quash all opposing views in dialogue. I haven't taken this decision lightly and the forum members, some of whom will no doubt be glad to be shot of my 'petty squabbles', are certainly not universally the object of my criticism. However, any online forum whose members advocate shutting people up, in the face of what is nothing other than a personal put down, is not my kind of forum.

Thàin' e, sheall e, theich e.

[musicus]

Thank you, everyone, for your contributions to this thread. The discussion at SSG's AGM was extremely positive, and the Trustees were given much food for thought at their forthcoming meeting. As soon as we receive feedback from them, we will post a report on the forum.

Since the AGM is now well past, I will close this thread.