30 day ban on controversial additions

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

I suggested this in the Black Sabbath thread, most who posted on the thread agreed that Sabbath are prog-related, but some were reluctant of their inclusion; not because of the music's relationship to prog, but the reaction that there would be in the forums.
That is why I have this suggestion, next time a band is inclusion that is likely to cause controversy, we immediately shut down and/or ban any threads about the specific group for roughly 30 days until then it is likely people have cooled off.  Some senior member could write a brief blog anonomously (to avoid inevitable flack), explaining why it was felt the band should be included here.
I myself have now got to the place where I realise that a band being prog/related doesn't have to be one you like to qualify the progginess.
At times we adults do get a little bit childish about music (check out what I wrote in the Camel thread for an example) but I think with adequate rules like this, music doesn't have to be prevented being here because of politics, or ignorance.
I remember I was against Metellica being here, but the fact was I havn't heard an entire album of theirs, I didn't and still don't like their music but regardless my ignorance like many others is holding back the site. Metellica may or may not be prog related but this is irrelevant, I think we need to behave more democratically in the inclusion and not overreact because more often than not out negative reactions our out of ignorance. I remember when Split Enz were included here people reacted negatively, because they were ignorant of there earlier prog music, so I think a 30 day ban is a good idea until many of us (me included) can all start to grow up a bit more.

Edited by Cheesecakemouse - October 03 2007 at 23:36

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Cheesecakemouse Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Reviewer page Forum Senior Member Joined: April 05 2006 Location: New Zealand Status: Offline Points: 1751	Topic: 30 day ban on controversial additions Posted: October 03 2007 at 23:24
	I suggested this in the Black Sabbath thread, most who posted on the thread agreed that Sabbath are prog-related, but some were reluctant of their inclusion; not because of the music's relationship to prog, but the reaction that there would be in the forums. That is why I have this suggestion, next time a band is inclusion that is likely to cause controversy, we immediately shut down and/or ban any threads about the specific group for roughly 30 days until then it is likely people have cooled off. Some senior member could write a brief blog anonomously (to avoid inevitable flack), explaining why it was felt the band should be included here. I myself have now got to the place where I realise that a band being prog/related doesn't have to be one you like to qualify the progginess. At times we adults do get a little bit childish about music (check out what I wrote in the Camel thread for an example) but I think with adequate rules like this, music doesn't have to be prevented being here because of politics, or ignorance. I remember I was against Metellica being here, but the fact was I havn't heard an entire album of theirs, I didn't and still don't like their music but regardless my ignorance like many others is holding back the site. Metellica may or may not be prog related but this is irrelevant, I think we need to behave more democratically in the inclusion and not overreact because more often than not out negative reactions our out of ignorance. I remember when Split Enz were included here people reacted negatively, because they were ignorant of there earlier prog music, so I think a 30 day ban is a good idea until many of us (me included) can all start to grow up a bit more. Edited by Cheesecakemouse - October 03 2007 at 23:36

Easy Livin Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Reviewer page Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: February 21 2004 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 15585	Posted: October 04 2007 at 03:30
	There's a balance between suppressing discussion for the good of the site and allowing free speech. The Admin team try as best we can to ensure that balance is right, but as your post suggests that is not always easy. The issues I could envisage with the 30 day ban are: - Enforcement, it would be all but impossible to stop all such discussion - The implication that a decision has been taken but not announced. That could easily lead to frustration among the members. If we did announce a decission then not allow discussion, that would be even more frustrating.

Raff Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Reviewer page Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 29 2005 Location: None Status: Offline Points: 24392	Posted: October 04 2007 at 03:48
	I think I explained much the same thing (though Bob did it much better...) in the BS thread. Suppressing freedom of speech is never a good thing, especially when adults are involved. Nevertheless, I also believe every effort should be made to avoid people going overboard and attacking others, as it happens all too often. I readily admit to being more sensitive than the average person, but this is the way I am, and I'm afraid I'm not going to change at my ripe old age. However, some people were really extremely unpleasant to me in the past, especially when I was dealing with difficult situations in my everyday life. It's true that most people come back to the site after having left, but this doesn't mean they forget such episodes.