# Speechless



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

I am. (For the most part.) Adhering to the TOS rules.

Anyone else?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

I'm not speechless, much the opposite. Let me give you a little speech. 

Message boards that function without moderation are terrible places to be, and become rapidly infested with trolls, immature brats, and assorted nut cases. It is the nature of the Internet that a place can only be sane and relatively friendly when there are certain rules of conduct in place (and when they are actively enforced) to guarantee a civil discourse. But I'm sure that those who prefer the lack of moderation will be able to find some non-moderated boards elsewhere. The Internet is vast and there is something for everyone. 

This forum is privately owned, and provides a free service to its members. When they join, they promise to abide by the terms of service. Nobody forces anybody to join. People join voluntarily - not before making the above promise - and are free to leave at any time if they don't like the rules.

This is not your house. This is Frederik Magle's house. Try to enter any house in town - after having promised to respect the owner's rules in order to earn an invitation to come in - and see if you can behave however you want, without respecting any of those rules. Let's say that the owner tells you - yeah, you can come in, as long as you take your shoes off, don't put your feet on the chairs, don't treat my dog cruelly, use silverware to eat and not your hands, don't make unflattering comments to my wife and my daughter, and behave generally politely with the other people I have invited in. You say, yes sir, I promise I'll behave just like you said. You then come in, and insist on doing all the things the owner asked you not to do, over and over, in spite of a couple of stiff warnings. Well, chances are that the owner will escort you out and throw you on the sidewalk.

The owner is at no obligation to adapt the rules to your whims. You do not have the right to change the rules. This is not a democracy.

During the last few days I spent hours of my precious time working hard for you all - for free, mind you; moderators are not paid. I confess that the work is less than pleasant, having to deal with some rebellious folks who can't seem to be able to hold the promise that they voluntarily and freely made themselves at registration.

What is wrong with you people? Are you just by reflex against any kind of established authority? Well, if you are, sorry, but there are rules here. If you want to enjoy all the free perks of this place, then abide by the rules and you'll be fine. If you don't approve of our set of rules, then this place is not for you and you should go elsewhere.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> I multitask.:lol:


I'm totally not commenting about that.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I'm guessing he locks himself in his office and tells patients he's 'busy' while he's posting.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

No, I don't mean that nastily. We've had some jokes about multitasking.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> I'm guessing he locks himself in his office and tells patients he's 'busy' while he's posting.


No, seriously? I'm a lot less busy these days than you may imagine. In the kind of position I hold, residents and students do most of the work which is often more one of guidance and supervision. I have slowed down professionally significantly and when I moved from a large metropolis to my current almost rural location (well, not really rural, but a small metropolitan area - I live in the outer fringes of it), it was exactly in order to have a more relaxed life style; I was a bit tired of the academic rat race. I see it as a sort of pre-retirement. Currently I'm home most days by 6, 6:30 PM, and it's been a while since I was last on call overnight or in weekends (let me see... the last one was about three years ago). Weekends spent writing grants and papers? Not for me any longer... I'd rather spend time with my wife and watch opera. The fact that one of my kids is almost done with her education (last year of graduate school) and the other one is out to college (with everything pretty much paid for if all goes according to plan) made everything a lot simpler and my wife and I don't need to work as hard anymore.

But yes, I've been spending way too much time here. My wife has complained a few times already. But the practice hasn't suffered. I post during my lunch breaks, or from home. Most of my activity is as a hospitalist, with a fixed number of beds. Sometimes, like this afternoon, I was pretty much done by 3:30 PM, with virtually nothing else to do, and all the patients tucked in. There are some very busy days, though. It's unpredictable. But for the first time in my professional life, I've been rarely going beyond 40 hours of work per week, and I love it.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Andy Loochazee said:


> My wife gets enough spare time, thank you.


Anyone who _works_ for the NHS, as opposed to _managing_ the NHS deserves a medal. Living where I live I dare not fall ill. 



Andy Loochazee said:


> She used to post the occasional thought on music on T-C, but got fed up with the place over a year ago. She felt that it was over-run with children.


Being 'over-run' with children makes this place all the more interesting & enjoyable for me. Many opera fans are boring old f*rts (I include myself in that description) & I find the input from 'children' exciting and welcome.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Active and effective moderation is a bliss - I would like more boards to do it as well as this one. It takes a lot of time and patience on the side of the mods (been there on several boards, done that, not going there again...  ), for which I think many regulars are very grateful. I know I am.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think a moderator has to tread a fine line. They can't just instantly ban someone like the people I've seen banned during my time here in the past 2 years. They have to have a legitimate reason, and the fact that some of these people are **** holes to begin with is not good enough. Unfortunately, they have to break the rules a number of times to get totally banned. & these people are not fools, they know how to make posts that are just on the borderline between not being banned and being banned, if you know what I mean. In any case, it's not easy to apply the rules. With my experience of the people that were banned recently, I understand that they were given many chances to come good (warnings, etc.). I don't think that the moderators do this lightly.

& I think Almaviva is doing a pretty good job here, and it isn't a bad thing that he's a more "active" moderator. How he finds the time outside of his work, family or other duties is none of my business. & I didn't even know he was a medical doctor until I read this thread. I knew he was some kind of professional, but I didn't know the specifics. I'm not really highly interested in what kinds of work others do here, it doens't matter if they are so-called blue or white collar workers, students, or unemployed. I'm more interested in talking about music than focussing on where they are at in life (although some of those things can be interesting from time to time, they aren't the main focus for me)...


----------



## bygone era (Mar 14, 2011)

Mum's the word
only flattery

A doctor on the internet 
Is malpractice in the wait


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

So why are we suddenly acting out against moderation? If you have a problem with it, then take it to another forum.

And discussing wether Almaviva has the time for it, as a doctor? How is that any of our business?


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

I would be interested to know WHY Serge is 'Speechless' about the TOS rules. What is it he seems to object to? I notice he hasn't re-posted...


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I think we can do without snide ill-intentioned age-generalisation thank you.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Two mysteries:

1) Serge has completely changed his opening message, thereby making a nonsense of everything that follows.
2) emiellucifuge: I can't relate your post to anything that's gone before


----------



## Yoshi (Jul 15, 2009)

Rasa said:


> And discussing wether Almaviva has the time for it, as a doctor? How is that any of our business?


That's exactly what I thought when I read this thread. :lol:


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Delicious Manager said:


> Serge has completely changed his opening message, thereby making a nonsense of everything that follows.


How do you mean, Sir? I most certainly did not! 

Oh, mysteries of the mind... 



Delicious Manager said:


> I would be interested to know WHY Serge is 'Speechless' about the TOS rules. What is it he seems to object to? I notice he hasn't re-posted...


Yes, thank you, I was about to… Just give me a minute or two to finish writing it down…

To *Almaviva* (First post)

Yes, yes, in general this is all nice and dandy and understood and very much appreciated. No kidding. And for me, personally, you didn't have to chew on all of that so much, although, who knows, maybe someone else will find a revelation or two in there. (Besides, I think this has been done in quite a few threads only recently, if I'm not mistaken.) But, specifically, I was referring of course to the most recent episode where, on the surface at least, it appears that a member was thrown overboard (permanently, mind you) for just letting a little steam out. Now, I am not claiming to know everything that has occurred prior, but it looks to me that other people were able to get away with substantially more serious infringements, even to carry on with their objectionable activities, before some temporarily restricting measures were applied to them, if any. No such good luck in this case, it appears. So how exactly one walks the line when it appears to be shifting so much?

Also, the moderator's post-mortem notes happen to sound, to me at least, like some kind of a personal vendetta has taken place. (Or at least like some kind of personal satisfaction with the fact that the member in question is now gone has been expressed.) And that is where things look both out of hand and out of line. And quite scary, to be honest. That is, if one cares enough, of course.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

I think I have lost the plot ... I'm SURE I read something different this morning


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Delicious Manager said:


> . . . 1) Serge has completely changed his opening message, thereby making a nonsense of everything that follows.


No ... he did not. His post has not been "edited" ... I can "see" such things


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Krummhorn said:


> No ... he did not. His post has not been "edited" ... I can "see" such things


Like I said, I must have lost the plot today - or been standing on my head when I read it. Apologies to all.

I will now go and flush my confused head down the toilet ....


----------



## bygone era (Mar 14, 2011)

Scene I of the plot
http://www.talkclassical.com/12799-censorship-defamation-forum.html


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Serge said:


> How do you mean, Sir? I most certainly did not!
> 
> Oh, mysteries of the mind...
> 
> ...


Serge, these are valid concerns. What I can tell you is that you don't know 5% of what went on behind the doors through PMs between moderators and those users, and efforts on our part to remediate the situation, including offering a friendly hand and trying to fish the member(s) back from hard feelings and misunderstandings (obviously it didn't work). I know that trust is not granted but earned, and I don't expect you to trust me (at least not yet), but all I can tell you is that what actually went on is A LOT different from what appears to have gone on, on surface.

Personal vendetta? Actually one of the ways we operate is that if a mod is too close to the heat of the situation, he/she excuses himself from further weighing on what to do next (it has happened in one of the recent cases).

You guys may be less used to my style... I'm a bit hands on, and very expressive. Maybe this is what is wrong, and I should be more discreet and hands off. I've been thinking about what the ideal distance is, and still learning on the job.

I'm also a bit more for direct confrontation of some trolls than apparently my senior colleagues have been, and my views on this can be a bad thing (I'm not as serene and wise as some of the senior people), or a good thing (maybe there'll be faster clean-up and explosive situations that end up hurting good people will be prevented by acting sooner and proactively). It's hard to know. This is a delicate function, and not by any means an easy one.

But the intentions, I can assure you, are the best possible ones, and I'm open to criticism (just PM me, you or anybody else here, if you have anything you want to tell me about the way I'm handling this).

Cheers, Alma:tiphat:


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

I'm still trying to work out how Serge can say 'I'm speechless'. To say 'I'm speechless' requires speech, which seems to contradict the initial statement.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Krummhorn said:


> No ... he did not. His post has not been "edited" ... I can "see" such things


Can you 'see' the 'invisible' people too?



Chris said:


> I'm still trying to work out how Serge can say 'I'm speechless'. To say 'I'm speechless' requires speech, which seems to contradict the initial statement.


Most people don't speak when they type.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Serge said:


> But, specifically, I was referring of course to the most recent episode where, on the surface at least, it appears that a member was thrown overboard (permanently, mind you) for just letting a little steam out. Now, I am not claiming to know everything that has occurred prior, but it looks to me that other people were able to get away with substantially more serious infringements, even to carry on with their objectionable activities, before some temporarily restricting measures were applied to them, if any. No such good luck in this case, it appears.


I'm not _entirely_ sure who this is in reference to, but Toucan's banning did seem a little abrupt (unless their were posts/communications of which I was not aware, which is perfectly possible). Especially in comparison with Saul, who had it coming for a _long_ time.

Though I am thankful for moderation, and how hard y'all work to keep the site from becoming overrun with unpleasantness.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

bygone era said:


> Mum's the word
> only flattery
> 
> A doctor on the internet
> Is malpractice in the wait





bygone era said:


> Scene I of the plot
> http://www.talkclassical.com/12799-censorship-defamation-forum.html


Your two posts on this thread are remarkable for a new member who one would think would still be trying to familiarize him/herself with things and find out who's who and what's what. What are the odds of a new member going straight to a thread where it's easy to stir the pot and post opinions about people he or she is not supposed to know?


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Chris said:


> I'm still trying to work out how Serge can say 'I'm speechless'. To say 'I'm speechless' requires speech, which seems to contradict the initial statement.


_Momentarily rises from toilet bowl_

He said 'speechless', not 'typeless'.:tiphat:

_Re-assumes the position_


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

bygone era said:


> Mum's the word
> only flattery
> 
> A doctor on the internet
> Is malpractice in the wait


I don't practice on the internet. What I do here is a hobby.
I'm posting during my lunch break (which will soon be over).
No malpractice risk, but thanks for your concern.:tiphat:


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> Your two posts on this thread are remarkable for a new member who one would think would still be trying to familiarize him/herself with things and find out who's who and what's what. What are the odds of a new member going straight to a thread where it's easy to stir the pot and post opinions about people he or she is not supposed to know?


Great, I see that another one of my colleagues is thinking that the confrontational approach is a good idea! (But I'm sincerely still uncertain about what is best).


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

Anyone who thinks TalkClassical is overmoderated should try StudentRoom. Despite its name it is open to everyone. When I am there I spend most of my time in the Maths section. On one occasion I posted something I saw in the local paper concerning somebody who had committed a solecism in the realm of physics. In no time a moderator had deleted the thread and imposed three 'penalty points' on me for the infraction of 'forum misuse' on the grounds I should have made the post in the Physics section. I say! Anyway, I felt a little hard done by and made another post, worded with Spanish politeness, suggesting the authorities had acted precipitately. This post was expunged even faster than the first, and I was fined a further three points for 'questioning a moderator's decision'.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Almaviva said:


> Great, I see that another one of my colleagues is thinking that the confrontational approach is a good idea! (But I'm sincerely still uncertain about what is best).


I don't know. In general I don't think it's a good idea to give certain posters the attention they long for and in doing so give them the opportunity to keep it going and tempt other well meaning members to join the 'debate' and if possible drag them down with them. So, unless it can't be avoided I won't be posting any follow-up messages on this. I think most members are smart enough to make up their own minds about the intentions of such posters anyway.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Meaghan said:


> I'm not _entirely_ sure who this is in reference to, but Toucan's banning did seem a little abrupt (unless there were posts/communications of which I was not aware, which is perfectly possible).


There were (and more to the point, there always _are_).

We don't impose bannings the first time someone speaks unpleasantly to us. However, we won't stand for _serial_ abuse of Forum Staffers. And even at that, we'll typically caution, then warn, then sanction... all before taking concluding action. If a member hasn't changed violative practices after steps one, two and three, then we have to consider the logic of applying Step Four.


Meaghan said:


> Though I am thankful for moderation, and how hard y'all work to keep the site from becoming overrun with unpleasantness.


Actually, putting in our efforts for grateful members is NOT like work most days (it's more like an enjoyable avocation). Granted, some weeks are more challenging than others- but we've been around long enough to know that "this, too- shall pass.":tiphat:


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Chris;153242 said:


> Anyone who thinks TalkClassical is overmoderated should try StudentRoom. Despite its name it is open to everyone. When I am there I spend most of my time in the Maths section. On one occasion I posted something I saw in the local paper concerning somebody who had committed a solecism in the realm of physics. In no time a moderator had deleted the thread and imposed three 'penalty points' on me for the infraction of 'forum misuse' on the grounds I should have made the post in the Physics section. I say! Anyway, I felt a little hard done by and made another post, worded with Spanish politeness, suggesting the authorities had acted precipitately. This post was expunged even faster than the first, and I was fined a further three points for 'questioning a moderator's decision'.


Man, the moderators on that site sound like a real bundle of laughs. I wonder what they'd do to lighten up if ever there was a convention?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I'm grateful for all the hard work the mods do to keep this place so pleasant. 

There's a fine line between vigorous debate & abuse & you guys do a great job.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

> "trolls vs. moderators"


A metadiscussion, and frankly on a forum on music I don't see how it can crop up but for the ego of the members who bring it up.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I might've made trouble at times, and I have been warned about a post that I thought was obviously just a silly and unoffensive joke, but anyway I'm going to kiss up now, and declare my gratitude to the mods for their fine work.

I have been a mod on beliefnet, so I know how much time it involves - and I quit! It was just too much. But I can speak from experience that probably all mods just roll their eyes when they're accused of various forms of abuse. 

If anyone really wants to speak truth to power, go get involved in politics.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> There were (and more to the point, there always _are_).
> 
> We don't impose bannings the first time someone speaks unpleasantly to us. However, we won't stand for _serial_ abuse of Forum Staffers. And even at that, we'll typically caution, then warn, then sanction... all before taking concluding action. If a member hasn't changed violative practices after steps one, two and three, then we have to consider the logic of applying Step Four.


Okay. Well, that answers that, and sounds plenty reasonable.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Meaghan said:


> I'm not _entirely_ sure who this is in reference to, but Toucan's banning did seem a little abrupt (unless their were posts/communications of which I was not aware, which is perfectly possible). Especially in comparison with Saul, who had it coming for a _long_ time.


I don't know if he was warned about it in the past, but I've been on the receiving end of some of toucans nastier comments. Part of the reason I don't post as much as I used to.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Nix said:


> I don't know if he was warned about it in the past, but I've been on the receiving end of some of toucans nastier comments. Part of the reason I don't post as much as I used to.


He seemed to have a bit of a short temper no doubt (Im assuming Toucan is a 'he'). 'Tis a shame though because when he held himself together he had some pretty intelligent contributions to the forums.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Nix said:


> I don't know if he was warned about it in the past, but I've been on the receiving end of some of toucans nastier comments. Part of the reason I don't post as much as I used to.


That's a shame--nasty comments are no fun, and I guess I wasn't aware of Toucan's behavior. Well, you can post more now!


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

"this, too- shall pass."

And pass it did. The forum has been surprisingly calm for the last few days, and even very explosive topics have been discussed with civility, for a change. It shows me that we are indeed adopting (mostly) the right approach (although, obviously, we're also subject to human mistakes).

Of course, the calm is only temporary. Some people (of whom you have seen recent examples above, if you have read attentively my posts and jhar26's) are here with only *one* purpose - to disrupt the forum and antagonize members and staffers.

So, soon enough some other useless troublemaker or the same one(s) will surface. But we'll be attentive, and believe me, we do it for your good.

Another invisible activity that we do for you guys is the zapping of spammers.

I am quite sure that if we weren't always curbing spammers, trolls, and users who can't seem to refrain from personal attacks, 90% of you guys wouldn't enjoy this place so much.

But I'm also fully aware that one can never please 100% of people, and whatever we do to be fair and transparent (to the extent we can be), there will always be people who won't understand what we do and will cry foul. Oh well, it comes with the territory, and in my 54 years of life, I've certainly learned to roll with the punches when it is the best I can do.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Looks like same old same old


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Serge said:


> I am. (For the most part.) Adhering to the TOS rules.
> 
> Anyone else?


What a Modest thing to say, OP. I guess you must not post album covers in the "Current Listening" threads. Or maybe that's in the "For the most part" category.


----------

