House Rules

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
House Rules

We've published a page of House Rules - the aim of which is to ensure the good nature and civilised environment of the Gramophone Forum.

Editor and Publisher, Gramophone

RE: Home

Martin,

A very sensible and well-considered set of rules, though I have some difficulty with the very first.  The issue raised here - 'What is offensive' is one that is currently extremely relevant, and asks a fundamental question: what sort of criteria are we adopting?  A creationist would find a Darwinist statement attacking the notion of a world created in six days as deeply 'offensive'. 

Could we not wrap this round a positive statement that the aim of the forum is to cultivate a civilised discourse in which the views of others, expressed in similarly civilised framework, are discussed.  OK, this is a bit woolly, buit I think it is an improvement on the rather sterile and endless discussions that rage about what is libellous, offensive, blasphemous etc - and I like to believe that forum participants are hard-wired with these values anyway.

RE: House Rules

Micos69,

My hunch is that most forum members will probably concur with any moderation we might make on grounds of the post being offensive. And if we ever do ever err on the site of caution, I also expect you'd all understand why, even if you may disagree. This particular point in the rules is not about closing down free speech or being censorious, it's exactly as you put it - "to cultivate a civilised discourse".

Editor and Publisher, Gramophone

RE: Home

Yes, we're very aware of the pitfalls, and not just from idle reading of websites – it's one of the reasons all Haymarket editorial staff do frequent law refresher courses, and why we have very good lawyers!

Audio Editor, Gramophone

RE: Home

chrisglew27 wrote:

I would be careful of this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/user_comments_ruling/

Should you moderate user comments, for whatever reason, you will be liable for them according to the courts!

Thankfully that's not actually  what the article or the ruling says. The headline chosen by The Register is using the word "moderate" in a rather misleadingly broad sense.

As Struan Robertson of Pinsent Mason comments

"If you want to be sure that you're not liable for what your users say, the judge is basically saying you need to ignore user contributions completely until you get a complaint."

ie, don't go looking for trouble - it'll find you soon enough if it wants to :-)

But any manual pre-moderation or editing of a user's message means the host must have seen it, and effectively (re)published it after pre-moderating or editing it, and will therefore assume joint legal liability for it.  

 

 


"Louder! Louder! I can still hear the singers!"

- Richard Strauss to the orchestra, at a rehearsal.

RE: House Rules

This last post (SpiderJon) suggests that the only appropriate course of action is deletion, as I understand is the Amazon practice for their forums.  I have no problem with this, provided offenders are informed and given the opportunity to express their views more acceptably, i.e. consonant with the 'good nature and civilised environment' Martin refers to.

Censorship?

I've tried posting a comment four times to a forum topic and each time I get a message saying that it needs to be reveiwed. However, there's nothing in my post that is in the slightest bit offensive nor is it even rude, so why is it that these mulitiple attempts are blocked and never posted? It seems to be either a glitch in the process of monitoring or censorshiip but I can't see any other reason for why I'm unable to post unobjectionable replies.

goofyfoot

Censorship?

Not a clue what the problem is - not censorship but some automated system not set right, for which apologies. Have now manually approved your post so it is visble.

Audio Editor, Gramophone

A reply kept away?

I think this "automated system" has kept away my last post (funnily not when I posted initially but when I tried to edit it), which was my "technical" answer to goofyfoot's above post. So, I guess we should not go this way to post our replies from now on.

I sincerely hope Andrew you can reinstate my post and restore this difficult situation.

Parla

Apologies

Sorry Andrew, I might have overreacted. Is there a better way to respond than by clicking on the active 'post reply' link at the bottom of the page? Funny but I've never experienced this problem until recently.

goofyfoot

open forum

At the start of this thread on 27 April 2010, Martin Cullingford describe the Gramophone Forum as "a friendly, lively environment where members can share opinions as well as knowledge and experiences". 

Recent exchanges suggest that there are many "out there" who visit on occasion, but do not find the environment to be friendly and certainly not lively. Some also find it difficult to share opinion when some contributors are exceedingly self-opinionated. Some of us who wish to share knowledge and experiencesre are also frequently met with those who close down discussion with "facts" which only reflect their own preferences rather than encouraging the broader expression of experiences.

I would welcome those who browse occasionally to get in here and stir things up. 

Log in or register to post comments

Gramophone Subscriptions

From£67/year

Gramophone Print

Gramophone Print

no Digital Edition
no Digital Archive
no Reviews Database
no Events & Offers
From£67/year
Subscribe
From£67/year

Gramophone Reviews

Gramophone Reviews

no Print Edition
no Digital Edition
no Digital Archive
no Events & Offers
From£67/year
Subscribe
From£67/year

Gramophone Digital Edition

Gramophone Digital Edition

no Print Edition
no Reviews Database
no Events & Offers
From£67/year
Subscribe

If you are a library, university or other organisation that would be interested in an institutional subscription to Gramophone please click here for further information.

© MA Business and Leisure Ltd. 2018