Obscenity

One the one hand this is an Open forum. Open (I think) means open to all, and in the FFA, that should mean open to all subjects. But on the other hand, Open also means that this site is meant to be accessible to all ages. Now, unfortunately, whether the administrators see it this way or not, they have in effect made it less accessible to their intended users by allowing offensive language. If I had a children, I would not allow them to access this site, period, which is a shame. I'm all for free speech, but there are any number of places on the web that allow for that. Of course, as a parent, I would not let my child go to any of those sites either. This is a site for musicians. How it attempts to achieve this mission will impact heavily on its success.

Consider this. If this site was well moderated for obsenity, and it became popular, I could easily see a corporate sponsor (like a finale, or sibelius) wanting to get in on this important entry-level segment of the market. But there's no way they would be affiliated with this site as it is run right now. Now you may have no intention of ever doing something this, which is fine also - but you are certainly missing out on a huge group of intended users, no doubt many of which would be model members of your community, and, I suspect, some of your more talented, dedicated members. Of course, this is a genralization.

Consider also the fine line between hate speech and the use of obscenity. Just the fact that this is a "young" person's site probably opens it up to front line liability issues.

Other sites that I frequent have forums similar to the FFA, where religion, and and other completely unrelated subjects to the site are discussed. But even they are moderated. I find that when language like this is allowed, it encourages ad hominem attacks. Especially with young adults, as they have very little in the way of formal (or even common sense) experience with debate and logic. I won't mention any names because I don't have to. It's rampant on this site.

Personally, It doesn't bother me. I certainly notice those that use obscenity and probably make a few (somtimes subconscious) judgements about thier character. I'm just curious what folks here have to say about the subject. And I'm curious what the administrators official position is and what plans, if any, that they have for the future.

Time for a history lesson. ;)

Just one year ago, YC was completely different, with a dated layout that hadn't changed in about 5 years and very outdated forum software. At most there were 4 or 5 people kicking about on the old forum and it wasn't very active at all. In fact, it was for all intents and purposes dead.

I came along and proposed YC be revived with a new layout and new forum software. Reaction to my suggestion was mixed, with some embracing the prospect of change and some wishing to hang on to how it was currently.

An important point that had to be considered during the revival, therefore, was how the new forum would retain the important facets of the old one at the same time as moving away from what made the old one eventually die. One of the most important of these facets was the doctrine of freedom of speech. In preparation for a more visible forum, I had written some short rules which would apply across the board. They were fairly common things like prohibitions of racism, homophobia and personal insults. However, the old members picked me up on this and raised the issue of freedom of speech. I explained that freedom of speech isn't necessarily compatible with a publicly-accessible forum depending on how far people take liberties with it. But they insisted that, as freedom of speech was an age-old YC tradition, it should stay on somehow.

This is why I created the Free-For-All forum: it was intended to be a place where absolutely anything at all could be said and where normal board rules didn't apply.

However, after a while we gained a considerably greater contingent of younger members who began posting things which, from a legal perspective, could land us in trouble (beforehand most of the members were above the age of 18). This was also combined with religious discussions in which homophobic and sometimes racist things were said, along with a tense atmosphere of confrontation that arose from the somewhat anarchic nature of the FFA forum. We knew that the freedoms we had bestowed on everyone in creating the FFA forum had probably played a great part in introducing these things to the community, but we let them pass because we wanted to retain freedom of speech.

However, chopin - the owner of the site by this time, having bought the domain - became more and more agitated at the thought of a parent or guardian (or indeed anyone else) suing him for something their child had seen on here. He also became worried about the fact that what transpired in the FFA forum might spread via word of mouth and give the site a bad reputation, which is a point I believe you touch on in your post. He therefore asked for some guidelines to be implemented in the FFA forum including a ban on hate speech and restrictions on sexual content.

Of course, this angered many of our members, not least the old YC members who were adamant that freedom of speech should prevail at all costs. Unfortunately chopin felt that he had no choice and took the decision to impose these restrictions. It was a tough decision that he knew would anger a lot of people but he felt the need to protect himself from a legal perspective and also protect the site's reputation, being the owner.

We are therefore charged in the present day with the task of maintaining a balancing act between freedom of speech and preventing illegal and possibly seriously undesirable content from being posted. As many members have pointed out, the FFA forum is no longer a "free-for-all" because there are indeed now restrictions. Nonetheless, members are permitted to take more liberties in the FFA forum than the publicly-viewable Off Topic forum.

Now, having set the scene, you should hopefully appreciate the reasons for the FFA forum's existence and the consequential conflict of ideas and ends which has resulted. As you can see, a tricky and certainly undesirable situation has arisen and at present we're not quite sure what to do about it. I personally am all for freedom of speech and originally opposed adding restrictions to the FFA forum but eventually came to the conclusion that chopin was in fact right. I therefore support his decision.

I suppose he will look at your post and nod to himself, thinking "this person is on my wavelength". There are a lot of young people around here and you're right - a corporate sponsor is unlikely to take us on at the moment. And, despite members by default not having access to the FFA forum, it may negatively alter their perception of the site. But perhaps having a corporate sponsor at the cost of freedom of speech wouldn't be in the spirit of YC. Then again, having said that, the "speech" in question is certainly now less free than it once was. That's the conflict.

I'm not sure what is going to happen in future, we haven't discussed it all that much. Considering chopin has recently closed a thread in the FFA forum on account of personal insults, this would appear to be a further restriction added to the guidelines and one step away from freedom of speech. So for all I know, the Off Topic and FFA forums may become so similar a merge between the two is warranted. Possibly this single merged forum would not be publicly viewable though and slightly more liberties would be afforded towards members than on the music-related boards.

I'll definitely watch the poll results closely, anyway.

Thank you, Mike, very much. I admire you more every day.

Since the poll questions as they were originally stated were excessively leading and judgmental, I have taken the liberty of restating them as simple yes or no answers. Now that Mike is interested in the results, this has become a serious poll.

Thank you, Mike, very much. I admire you more every day.

Since the poll questions as they were originally stated were excessively leading and judgmental, I have taken the liberty of restating them as simple yes or no answers. Now that Mike is interested in the results, this has become a serious poll.

Excessive? Actually, I was simply trying to inject some humor into the poll; but yes you are right - it did have a tini-tiny bias. And though my feelings are hurt :D , I'm sure I'll get over it. Hmm, I'm feeling better already. ;)

Sorry...didn't mean to come off as a jerk. I try hard to mind my pieds-and-queues, yet despite my best efforts, sometimes I still run rough-shod on someone's feelings. My apologies.

I guess that being one of the last old-timers left here, there is a lot at stake (personally), as you may surmise from Mike's brief history.

I'd be interested to see if any studies have been done on the effects of this so called "freedom of speech" on the people who elect to use it.

In days before widespread use of the internet (which was not very long ago), almost all communication was much more personal. Natural inhibitions kept people to a higher standard of courtesy. I think it's certainly fair to say that the type of conversation that takes place on many forums is frequently NOT how the same people would talk if they were face to face with each other. People are far bolder with expressing controversial opinions or even resentment when societal penalties are not present. In the "real world," people generally seek to avoid behavior that makes them look foolish or mean in front of people who know them (not just the people they're talking to). When face to face with an opponent, they are more likely to conform to societal standards of conduct. How many of us would really be willing to yell at a complete stranger in person?

These safe-guards that moderate our behavior don't exist here, and we see what some people might call the true nature of these individuals. This is of course all obvious - but what I'm wondering is if allowing ourselves to behave like this actually changes us - and if so how. It doesn't stretch my imagination very far to start to link aggressive and anti-social behavior to people who I've known to be "brave" forum posters. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out this type of behavior led to poorer social skills and even a lower tolerance level for other people in our personal lives.

In many ways, we're all the guinea pigs for this. It hasn't been around long enough to really have any solid evidence. It really is a completely different dynamic to social interaction, and it's certainly reasonable to say that social interaction has a gigantic impact on our personal development. It is perhaps the greatest influence. So when we start playing dramatically with how that works, what's the result?

I fear that the days of "freedom of speech" are over. Too many big brothers are watching us, too many foibles have come under legislation. You bet that internet surveillance will double by the year. (Recall google's recent refusal to report users and IPs making certain searches to the US government?) Governments in their usual numbskull ways didn't tumble that if you proscribe something, self-expression no less than anything else, it will just be pushed underground or on the internet.

Freedom of speech has been so seriously eroded over the past 10-15 years (in the UK anyway) that I'm waiting for our pillocks government to issue a list of approved words.

As to obscenities, I rarely use them. I have no need. I don't condemn those who do but if in excess I'd be unlikely to find myself in much social contact with them. I'd sooner the web without them but one has to allow others what limited self-expression they can still command.

I don't use obscenities very often, either, but I like to know that I can if I choose, even if purely on principle.

You bet that internet surveillance will double by the year. (Recall google's recent refusal to report users and IPs making certain searches to the US government?)

Isn't this a good thing? A gesture of respect from Google to the right of privacy of their users? It makes me feel a lot better about the fact that they log IPs in the first place to know that they don't turn over their information to people who have ulterior motives (other than commerce).

It seems to me that the US Government tried to get Google to turn over their findings because the government cannot do it itself without being backlashed by the public. Google, as a commercial organization, can do such things in the name of market research, and thus allay much suspicion of their motives as threats to personal rights.

I wished the FFA forum was taken out, really. Sure, its "restricted", but even people who would never post there would read some of the stuff in there, and the crap is in there makes YC looks really unprofessional. I don't mind religion flamewars and whatnot, but doing it in an unproductive manner is just stupid. I mean, this thread here... who would want a community like this, even if it IS in a so-called "free for all" forum.

Waste of space, waste of bandwith, waste of human dignity.

I completely agree, WiseElben. Though I don't post much here, its sorta hard to when nearly everyone posts in FFA and the topics there always turn into the same thing, that personally I am tired of trying to defend so I just ignore them now.

Anyway, I think there is no real need for obscenity on a music forum. Its nice to have a place for conversation, but a lot of conversation quickly turns to, or even starts as, complete disrespect and obscenity.

Isn't this a good thing? A gesture of respect from Google to the right of privacy of their users? It makes me feel a lot better about the fact that they log IPs in the first place to know that they don't turn over their information to people who have ulterior motives (other than commerce).

It seems to me that the US Government tried to get Google to turn over their findings because the government cannot do it itself without being backlashed by the public. Google, as a commercial organization, can do such things in the name of market research, and thus allay much suspicion of their motives as threats to personal rights.

Agree with you totally - I'm very cynical. I have nothing to hide but hate the idea of people watching my every move to prove it!

Well, better to be paranoid than a fool.

M

Anyway, I think there is no real need for obscenity on a music forum. Its nice to have a place for conversation, but a lot of conversation quickly turns to, or even starts as, complete disrespect and obscenity.

It needn't be this way. It's something we're working on, not by putting more regulations on people, but by encouraging more respectful behaviour.

I use profanity sparingly. But just knowing that I can affects how free I feel. Something as simple as that can mean the difference between feeling free and feeling like some fascist strong-arm will punch your lights out if you step a millimetre out of line.

No doubt, dealing with this issue will be delicate no matter what ends up being done (or not done). But I

You simply make respect a requirement. Moderated means moderated. Heck (oo- did I swear? ), when I authored this very post, one of the moderators went and CHANGED MY WORDS on the poll. - My freedom of speech was not only curtailed - but MOLESTED (and I didn

I am very glad this was brought up, thank you leightwing.

The first important thing to know is, everything but the FFA hopefully is civilized. I say hopefully because it is impossible to be 100% sure that this huge forum is perfectly rid of obscenities, however, the moderators have been doing their best to keep the non FFA sections civilized. If they miss things, anyone can report a finding. So, in fact, your son or daughter would be able to surf the regular parts of the site, just with restricted access to the FFA. You are concerned he/she FINDS the FFA and hits the access button...because anyone can do this.....

You are right. Regarding the FFA, there are a multitude of posts that are highly offensive, and shameful. I am not sure if these posts have been deleted (probably not), but after seeing shameful posts, as Mike stated, we don't tolerate hate speech or extreme sexual content. We are figuring out what to do with the already tainted postings in the FFA.

Now, you are concerned about children on this site finding the FFA? Because, the way we have it now, the site should be PG, sometimes borderline PG13, and the FFA would be R. The statistics of this domain show that most people are young teens 13-17 or so. Most likely, the site won't have anyone who is 13 or younger, however there are always exceptions. The point is, the regular site should be rated PG, so that means, mostly anyone can visit this site. Anyone younger has been warned about the FFA being rated R..and although the material in the FFA is not illegal, if they do choose to enter the FFA, they choose to do so at his/her own will. The material in the FFA is mature and rated R but not X (again hopefully). But, the concern for young children for the regular site isn't a huge issue, because the age group of the site is 13+, the regular site is PG to borderline PG13, and they have been warned that the FFA contains rated R material. Is this not enough? This is not a rhetorical question.

But I see what everyone is saying, and YC is definitely taking steps to reduce the obscenity level. Word filters are useless, there are ways around it. And it is not a fix of the real problem. The fix is to encourage humanity! But, we don't want to restrict the site too much, (regarding freedom of speech) because the site after all, is not a bunch of 8-10 year olds. We have many growing up adolescents, and older members, such as myself, and others, who can for sure handle PG13 and intelligent debates. Not to mention, I am trying to encourage more older members to sign up, and to help break the tradition of only hosting young teens. The reason is, we need more adults to balance out the many teens we have. The adults can for sure help guide these teenagers, and as a result, this place will be more pleasant.

Not to mention, I am trying to encourage more older members to sign up, and to help break the tradition of only hosting young teens. The reason is, we need more adults to balance out the many teens we have. The adults can for sure help guide these teenagers, and as a result, this place will be more pleasant.

when I authored this very post, one of the moderators went and CHANGED MY WORDS on the poll

i really dont mind that, they catch all the typos and spelling errors :mellow:

Not to mention, I am trying to encourage more older members to sign up, and to help break the tradition of only hosting young teens. The reason is, we need more adults to balance out the many teens we have. The adults can for sure help guide these teenagers, and as a result, this place will be more pleasant.

according to the site's title, this is a place for young people (...composers). exactly how young do you mean exactly?

Young people includes adults up to the age of 30. I'm an exception, and I haven't been the only one.

according to the site's title, this is a place for young people (...composers). exactly how young do you mean exactly?

Actually, I think there is a set age for young composers.

Which would be up to 35 years old.

But hey you're only as young as you feel, right? :mellow:

I wouldn't mind seeing more people in their 20's, 30's and above though. Hope I do.

*Edit: Oops, I see J. Lee already covered the youngcomposers age thing.

For some reason it sent me to page two instead of three.

With all due respect, chopin, it looks like you;re politely saying what a few members were complaining about...how this place is being overrun by "kids". If people under 18 aren't welcome here, change the title of the site.

No no no no no. Didn't mean it that way. I am just trying to encourage older members to join, in order to help balance the site. If the site had more older members than younger, then I would be trying to recruit younger members. No offense to anyone, we just need to be in equilibrium so that the site can run smoothly. That's all.

However, it is the young talent on this site, that does after all, make this site different from the rest. I am always happy to see new young talent join the forums.

Ooops...I think 35 is right, according to the original guidelines.

doesn't attracting some older (ie: professional) composers also open the door to getting advice from people who may have better insight?

it's all very nice to have young (beginner) composers sharing their music with each other, but there is only so much you can learn from another beginner. at a certain point, it becomes more profitable to have the insight of someone whose training is more complete.

it's all very nice to have young (beginner) composers

the majority may be beginners but there seem to be some quasi-prodigies kicking around here. but you are right, expanding the number of older members would bring around alot more expertise.

*Edit: Oops, I see J. Lee already covered the youngcomposers age thing.

For some reason it sent me to page two instead of three.[/b]

did you click the link that takes you to the last post you read? and if yes, was it the last one on the second page?