91Èȱ¬

Sad, but I understand budget cuts. I hope the new blog will allow for theoretical debate as well as current affairs in religious matters.

I'm not surprised, to find the 91Èȱ¬ offering these message boards seemed too good to be true.

Well Aaqil, it is no surprise, lets shut up the small voices and replace it with the voice of 'experts'. Sorry but you have got it wrong, of course half the posters are barking but it is just another move that marginalises opinions a touch outside the mainstream.

In the interests fo public disclosure:

What does it cost to administer these boards?
How many people?
What salaries are they paid?
How many users do these boards have?

Will I get an answer?

@The 6th Beatle You might if you can be bothered to go to the trouble of making that a proper FOI request.

Will the blogs select what comments can be screened?

I don't suppose it occurred to anyone to ask if any of the users would be willing to moderate the boards for free?

I, for one, am not in the least bit surprised. There are, as has been said, places to discuss things elsewhere. But are they as trusted and safe for newbies as here? Are they as informative?

Some of us will migrate to FB or Twitter, yes. But the wide spread of viewpoints will be lost and the world will narrow.

But then, that's Big Society for you...

Anyone who wants to join us, is welcome. We are off to FB, and an ex-91Èȱ¬ Religion discussion board will arise from the ashes. It won't be as good, but that's the way it is.

'Cuts' can be so inclusive. However, the loss of the bbc's funders free expression of opinion has taken on such a consistent pattern across all of aunty's manufactured output while other stuff continues to flourish, shows that if the he who pays the piper doesn't call the tune then someone else will.

Of course we have already an example of what will happen - when the "Today" message board was closed. We were assured that opportunities to comment in other ways would be expanded to compensate. They were not. The editorial team decides where, when and on what people can comment. There is no opportunity for a real discussion.

There will be no more real debate on the 91Èȱ¬ R & E web site.

Dear Aaqil,

I can understand the 91Èȱ¬'s decision. The groups must cost a fair bit to run and only provide a service to a small minority - and are largely unrelated to the 91Èȱ¬'s core activity.


I have posted some good stuff on the 91Èȱ¬'s religion boards over the years.
What will the 91Èȱ¬ do with the past content?

(1) Could the 91Èȱ¬ archive all the content (which should be cheap enough, since it is all text) for future researchers.

(2) Better still, any chance of making it all searchable online, as was done with the old newsgroups on Google groups ?

Even better, could you send me all my past posts ?
... no, thought not ... :) Ah well...]

Best wishes
Jonathan

This is a down right liberty and the stuff about budgets is rubbish..What is also rubbish is the right of appeal we have against this decision..
This is a social network of boards which allow [on most occasions anyway] the right to free speech and expression...And its exsistence should not be dependent on the trivial relativity of finance..
There must of been other places where the bbc could of saved a few pennys to keep these boards going but my main objections to thier closure is based on the fact that its users have had no visable chance of appeal against the decision...!
OUTRAGE...!!!!!

Chef...

What a rotten shame. I hope it can continue in some decent format. I wonder if it's possible to have a blog where, vetted, details can be given if people prefer a more informal approach.
Nick

Dear Aaqil,

I can understand the 91Èȱ¬'s decision. The groups must cost a fair bit to run and only provide a service to a small minority - and are largely unrelated to the 91Èȱ¬'s core activity.

Thank you to you and your team for running the religion boards all these years.


I have posted some good stuff on the 91Èȱ¬'s religion boards over the years.
What will the 91Èȱ¬ do with the past content?

(1) Could the 91Èȱ¬ archive all the content (which should be cheap enough, since it is all text) for future researchers.

(2) Better still, any chance of making it all searchable online, as was done with the old newsgroups on Google groups ?

Even better, could you send me all my past posts ?
... no, thought not ... :) Ah well...]

Best wishes

Jonathan

Hi Aaqil,

Would you consider an alternative to closure? Maybe the 91Èȱ¬ could ask for volunteers to be admins on the boards? I would be more than happy to do this. I am sure there are others too.

These boards do provide an excellent service to the public. In a country which is host to people of many religions it does provide an excellent, neutral, space for people of all faiths to engage and learn about the views of others.

Kind Regards

It was widely reported before the last election, that Cameron met with Murdoch. One of the conditions that Murdoch gave for his support to the Tories was that Cameron cut the 91Èȱ¬'s budget if he got in. Cameron agreed,and we're seeing the results now.

Cotumely: Along with a nudge to the competition commission to let him keep Sky News (which he has, no matter what any learned pro Murdochites say).

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

Particularly worried about stories of promises of alternative means of expression not being fulfilled.
When a messageboard closes a community is effectively destroyed, any research on this in terms of effects?

And so the 91Èȱ¬ dies a little bit more.

On the plus side, it's one less place for the Creationists and religiously-inspired bigots to abuse "respect" for their beliefs so that they can spread their lies.

(Is H2G2 going to be closed down as well?)

Inconceivable! A blog entry about board closures...

And that, Scaramunga, is as close as you are going to get to an answer about volunteers. The CCT may have made a complete hash of moderating (hiding comments at the drop of a hat, however ridiculous the complaint was), but they are right to say that the potential liability for an organisation as influential as the 91Èȱ¬ is enormous, and simply not worth the risk. True volunteers, who wouldn't receive expensive training, would have to be completely separate from the Beeb. Yet then, no-one would have any guarantee that a new board had not been set up by someone with a very different agenda from what the 91Èȱ¬ once loosely espoused.

I set up the Alt R4 Boards to examine precisely what 'emailheaven' could or couldn't do on his board. He can delete a member, if they request it, for example, even if he refuses to heed such requests. He can't, from what I can gather, read PMs, because I can't see that I can, either, but I have recommended that anyone still unsure should create their own boards, however basic, to test this for themselves.

I'm not promoting my board to the extent that he has, *because* it is more of a testbed, but anyone who wishes to help me test it is welcome to join. I'm a bit more concerned with holding Radio 4 to account for its actions than amassing an impressive member count, and with consistency rather than changing forums at the drop of a hat.

And if you understand what I'm saying, I want you to, mmm, take my hand...

:)

"It's not a case of asking if anyone would do it for free - volunteer moderation as you suggest is not a possibility for the 91Èȱ¬ - we are legally responsible as publishers and are bound by editorial guidelines that we could not rely on users to moderate to without a contractual arrangement that they would meet those standards. I also doubt many users would be happy having to find several million pounds' worth of liablity insurance :-D"

Why don't you mention 'Health and Safety' or 'The Data Protection Act' while you are at it? Or just 'Computer says 'no'. I never read such tosh.

There would be nothing to stop volunteers signing up to the same guidelines as the current staff. As for 'liability insurance', are you saying that the 91Èȱ¬ has to get some special extra coverage for its 'Religion' boards? Even if you need it, you can get 'several million pounds' worth of cover for very little, not that the vast numbers of the other sites on the internet where people can leave comments usually bother with it.

So why are the 91Èȱ¬ really choosing to cut the boards as opposed to elsewhere?

"However, the cost of maintaining this messageboard has become impossible to justify for a relatively small group of users"

I would say that the reason is the exact opposite. The professional staff want to restrict remaining resources to an even smaller group of users - themselves. As others have remarked, we heard this stuff about providing 'other platforms' when they closed other boards. It didn't happen then, it won't happen now.

But each time they do this, the 91Èȱ¬ chip away another bit of their 'unique public service' defence. One day, Mr Murdoch will come for you and you will find that there is nobody left who cares.

Sadly I'm not surprised at this closure. I'll miss the verbal duels, but I guess that with a greatly reduced budget, this closure was on the cards. I hope the new R & E blog is as popular as the christian message board and that the likes of TW, Colin, Elvis, Letusreason, etc.. continue to post blogs there...

This is really sad but I would agree with some others that it's been on the cards fo a while

But each time they do this, the 91Èȱ¬ chip away another bit of their 'unique public service' defence. One day, Mr Murdoch will come for you and you will find that there is nobody left who cares.

"It's not "tosh" at all. Health and Safety legislation has very little to do with it, but in fact the Data Protection Act is relevant....all the moderators are CRB-checked - another cost and imposition on these volunteers....Who then manages the shifts to make sure that these volunteer moderators start working on time to the agreed targets.."

Anyone who has ever dealt with a bureaucracy will recognise this stuff. And anyone who has ever run a volunteer based organisation will know that the CRB and DPA are not the mysterious and menacing legal minefields you imply. If there was a will, you could do it.

But more generally, you are going in completely the wrong direction. Do you think that when the next round of cuts comes, the 91Èȱ¬ 'Religion & Ethics Blog' is going to be seen as a priority? If you want to save yourself, the answer is to reach out and involve more people; if the message boards currently attract only a 'relatively small' group of users, the answer is to get more people involved! In one sentence you point to the 'meteoric growth' of social networks, in the next you say you are closing your own one down. Think about that.

But social networks are outside the expertise of your 'expert editors'. So you go for the option that they are comfortable with. Your choice, in my opinion; your mistake.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

CCT: 'Who then manages the shifts to make sure that these volunteer moderators start working on time to the agreed targets, and gives them feedback or removes them from their (freely-provided) duties when their performance is not good enough? Who ensures that enough moderators are working when the traffic is high, or that they escalate serious issues to the appropriate authorities, or keeps a record of changes to guidance, reporting restrictions, ongoing user management issues, or technical failures and developments?'

They will 'police themselves', and/or 'wither away', of course.

Honestly, the justifications you cook up for your actions...

Incidentally, now there finally *is* a board closure thread to be on topic about, I can ask you why it is that my comment on 'TCIYs' (the 'Come on, anna!' thread), in which I anticpiated that board's closure announcement by one day, was hidden for consideration of its suitability for over ten days, unhidden *only* after I complained about the post myself, with tongue firmly in cheek, and then a few weeks later and some time after the board *had* been closed, hidden permanently, with an email telling me, unusually, that I could reply to it if I had a problem with the decision. I did reply, twice, and you never responded.

Why the CCT judged a post to be OK by un-hiding it, and then changed their mind, is something I would very much like to know...

And bravo, hotmousemat!

Interesting that the only responses to posts on the blog are firstly on purely technical and legal issues and secondly NOT from the supposed author of the blog.

Did he actually write it, has he even looked at the responses or this yet another case of an executive just pretending to listen?

CCT...since the 91Èȱ¬ rightly has concerns about legal issues, will the new Facebook and Twitter presences have suitable controls? Especially when you consider the Twitter furore recently. Surely the 91Èȱ¬ will leave itself open to an even greater threat of legal action should the sites not be properly regulated. Can you answer that?

Good point, Sparrow.

And Religion & Ethics board users, I know it's not the same thing and it can take a bit getting used to, but have you thought about using The Village Hall or The Bull, over on the 91Èȱ¬'s Archers messageboard? It seems relatively safe from closure - for the moment anyway - although you never know when the 91Èȱ¬ is going to drop the bombshell on the few remaining messageboards.

/dna/mbarchers/NF2693944

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

Off topic? I hardly think so. People are rightly concerned and disappointed that various boards are closing. Smilie was simply posting a link to an alternative 91Èȱ¬ board.

Or should we only now be referring people to Twitter and Facebook now? I have absolutely no confidence in either of those media in providing a suitable alternative to anything the 91Èȱ¬ once provided so well....but so long ago now.

After World Service, "Ouch" and now Religion&Ethics going to Facebook, maybe the 91Èȱ¬ can buy Facebook? Oh, darn, I am not on Facebook.

>>Nick Reynolds wrote:
Hi - we are starting to drift a little off topic. Please stick to the topic - which is the closure of the Religion message boards.

Thanks

Great. MY attempt to reply whited out again...

>>Nick Reynolds wrote:
Hi - we are starting to drift a little off topic. Please stick to the topic - which is the closure of the Religion message boards.

Thanks

AND I failed to save the post before I sent it... Oh, no, it did save. Using angled brackets must have messed it up...

}}Nick Reynolds wrote:
Hi - we are starting to drift a little off topic. Please stick to the topic - which is the closure of the Religion message boards.

Thanks{{

Can you get someone to write a blog entry about the impending closure of the OUCH!! boards, then, so that we can discuss how the 91Èȱ¬ is failing in its 'duty of care' to a vulnerable part of the community?

Or maybe a catch-all entry for the Beeb's rolling removal of message boards, and absence of any public forum, natch, to protest about it?

Note that my last two attempts were no more than a minute apart, flea notwithstanding. How weird is *that*?

Linking out to POV....nicely done, especially when it's fairly obvious that not even the Host there bothers reading.

Our boards are being closed at an accelerating rate, we're being linked out to blogs. We then try to discuss our concerns on the blogs, and when we do? We're told to stop, or go back to where we came from. Frustrating, isn't it?

It's also a shame that the blog authors rarely come back to answer questions on THEIR blogs. What is the point in them putting their name to it? The Ouch blog post, and the messageboard technical blogs were the worst examples of it.

And yet blogs are still held up as the way of the future? What absolute nonsense.

I do hope I get a reply to my question to CCT a couple of posts upthread. How will the 91Èȱ¬ cover itself legally when hosting Facebook pages?

I'm having trouble sending my new post. If it duplicates, don't sue me...

}}At 07:28 18th Jun 2011, Nick Reynolds wrote:
Joe K - You can find a blog entry about the closure of the Ouch message board here.

If you wish to have a free wheeling discussion about this topic try this thread on the Points of View message board.{{
Thank you, Nick. The Ouch blog entry is certainly attracting seemingly universal condemnation. It is on the Ouch! blog, of course, which many wouldn't know about at all if you hadn't provided the link.

And I have contributed to that Points Of View discussion. POV can be quite arbitrary about what they allow to be discussed, closing topics on either the '91Èȱ¬ Television' *or* 'The 91Èȱ¬' board if they aren't about 91Èȱ¬ Television*, so it will be interesting to see how long that thread lasts.

*I muse again:
91Èȱ¬ Television - Points Of View
91Èȱ¬ Radio - Feedback
91Èȱ¬ Online - Input? (who is the internet Roger Bolton, or better yet, Chris Dunkley?)

The 91Èȱ¬ are spending a billion pounds (by time the dust settles) for an HQ up north that no one wants. That is why you can no longer afford the religious boards which have had thousands of posters on over the years. I can't see much interest in a future blog. Hardly a message board, is it?

'I do hope I get a reply to my question to CCT a couple of posts upthread. How will the 91Èȱ¬ cover itself legally when hosting Facebook pages?'...

No response to this. Will Conversocial be used as the moderation tool on 91Èȱ¬-related Facebook pages? I cannot imagine that the 91Èȱ¬ will not use some form of moderation, considering how seriously they take legal issues.

It's especially relevant I think that people who DO make the switch over to FB, are aware that there is *some* form of 'protection', albeit in a different form to yellow triangles...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

OK, then, how is this for 'on topic'?

The person who wrote the blog entry above, Aaqil Ahmed, said that 'social networks' independent from the 91Èȱ¬, including Facebook, would be acceptable alternatives to the messageboards the 91Èȱ¬ is slowly phasing out. I pointed out that Facebook is not very accountable to its users. I don't think it could have been my alternative name for Facebook that you objected to, but I'll leave it out just in case.

I then said that people could 'bet' that the 91Èȱ¬ would disavow (sp?) all knowledge of the adverse consequences of its actions if (when?) things wen't 'pear-shaped'.

Now, I can't really see how any of this is 'off topic' to this discussion.

I will also note in passing that you seem to be taking a special interest in this, Nick, and pretty much every blog entry and its comments, although you are not a moderator. Fair enough, if you have the authority to do that, but we would actually appreciate the blog writer himself taking an interest in the responses to what he has written. Do you have the authority to suggest that all contributors *should* take at least a little time to respond to comments?

And the box is still messing up (this is my second -third - attempt). D'you have any idea what the problem might be?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Now, I know from experience that when someone registers a complaint, they receive comfirmation that the issue is being investigated, and in this case, that comfirmation would be by email. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

'All posts are reactively-moderated'. This means that an ordinary member of the listener/readership thought it was worth reporting me for noting that I had misspelled 'confirmation', and 'the moderators' thought the report was worth acting on?

I still have had no confirmation...

The religion boards are still open, but no-one will say exactly how long 'til... 6pm?

'52. At 15:59 23rd Jun 2011, Nick Reynolds - I am the host of this blog and in this context have the authority to remove off topic comments.

91Èȱ¬ people who write blog posts are not obliged to answer comments, although we do try to encourage them to do so. A lot will obviously depend on what the comments say.'

Interesting as much as for what is said as not. And I thought modding was by mods according to 'rules'. Cartman, eat your heart out.

Still, chipping is great. Might try and encourage that here...

/blogs/theeditors/2011/05/our_next_step_in_news_blogging.html

Preferably not of the 'flying in the face of what's obvious, all is great..'/'it's my ball...'/'no it's not just because...' variety.

'60. At 11:26 27th Jun 2011, Joe K wrote:
The religion boards are still open, but no-one will say exactly how long 'til... 6pm?'

Hey, that's better than, say, a Nick R blog, which closes at 5pm these days (having opened after 9am usually).

So the 91Èȱ¬ is trying at least to reach out to those who pay the licence fee. If only when they are at work.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

'We'll host contributions from leading figures in politics, religion, news, ethics and the media'

So we are to be lectured by a 91Èȱ¬ selected 'nomenklatura' as to what we should think. Wot fun!

'So please stay on topic.' Nick Reynolds 'host'

Is it 'on topic' or 'off topic' to comment on a post by the host?

'That rather depends on what the host has said, Bx4..' Nick Reynolds

In this case what the host has said is not about the topic of the closure of the religionboards and so is off topic and so you should censor yourself.

I notice that the exciting new blog will be hosted by an 'expert editor' are we to be told at any point in what this 'expertise' will consist of?

I hope the closing of the 91Èȱ¬ messageboards won't mean that the replacement (a blogger?) won't be something forcing religion down our throats with no right to reply.

Is there nothing that this governement wont interfere with? Is nothing sacred? I would be interested to know. As things stand Mr Cameron is making sure that he wont be re elected. I look forward to the next forum though I can't see how it will be different Can anybody enlighten me? Regards Regina

My reply at #64 was gauged to illustrate the logical fallacy of associating forum numbers with quality of debate, at least when the debate in question has been misrepresented. I see no reason why it should remain hidden while 64 has been restored, and I'm not going to appeal for it's return. I'm just pointing out my opinion on its validity.

It is a very poor show that the blog author has not seen fit to respond on here leaving a few rude and aggressive posts from "the host" as the only voice of the bbc and its not a particularly helpful voice.

It is always best to look on the brighter side of every situation. It is quite unfortunate that the message board will be shut down however I do believe the move to facebook and Twitter will be more cost efficient and budget friendly since 91Èȱ¬ can make extensive use of the various free applications and pages available on these sites. In addition, 91Èȱ¬ religion and Ethics will open its door to a wider and more diverse audience since these two social networking sites – facebook and Twitter enjoy a greater number of active users. This change will be enriching for users worldwide

Change is inevitable in this ever unpredictable world and I do agree that the financial cost of a message board with few users is ridiculous especially in these times. I would hope that whoever is in charge of the new initiatives being introduced will see to it that it is properly coordinated meaning that inappropriate content is not permitted on the blog. Users have a tendency to use these free sites to advertise their business or create mischief. Therefore an effective screening process should be designed so that only substantial comments are posted for review.[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]In that way, the credibility and quality of the blog will not be compromised.

barry since the bbc decided to run down its messageboards the number of users have fallen dramatically.However before that threads would regularly move into thousands (yes thousands) of posts and hundreds of posts were the norm. you say the cost is ridiculous...do you know how much the cost is? and would a slight shaving from the chap leaving the bbc with a £400,000 redundancy and £4 million a year pension have covered it?
Brian the move to the 2 other companies that the bbc advertise in almost every arena is the end not a new beginning for all the messageboard areas being destroyed by the bbc..and although change does happen it doesnt mean you lie back and except manipulated changes which are for the worst

GOODBYE VOX POP?

I hope not.

Hello friends, from "Join Together" Mick.

A bit late I know but it was a pleasure to meet so many who have become such good friends especialy those with different opinions and Gods, long may PEACE be between us.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

So when does all this new stuff happen, then?