The Dissent Thread

[Conky]

Split from this announcement as it was getting astonishingly off-topic. Feel free to comment. Admin 1st May 2008


As a dissenting voice, and I'm happy to be in a minority of one. I personally dont think we need this concession. Roy has a great site, and good luck to him. I look forward to meeting him, and he is clearly a great Port expert, and friends tell me, a good man.

But we set up this site because of issues surrounding freedom of speech. We freely offer links to his site, and until that is reciprocated, dont agree to piecemeal deals. Just get on with life and wish FTLOP well, but deal with them from a position of strength, and not as somehow subservient.

Alan

[KillerB]

Conky,

I understand your point here but I see this as a good thing. FTLOP has its rules and we have our rules: ours are better, obviously Roy has changed his rules so that people on his site can get involved in our off-lines meaning potentially more people turning up. The full reciprocation thing would be nice but the most important part has always been the off-lines and now we can have open links, on this subject, between the two busiest Port fora on the web - surely a good thing.

We are not the weak partner in this as our forum is currently the more active but FTLOP has more members. I'd say evens. It is not subservience, it is not even a partnership, it's just links.

I hear your dissent and accept it as a valid point but I believe that this is an improvement and I'm fully in favour of it.

Cheers,

Alex

[Alex Bridgeman]

Conky

I have no problem with you being a dissenting voice or even the only voice with a dissenting view. Keep it up. There are things which you have said to me in the past which have directly affected the way in which I approach situations.

For example, I know you have worries that we are becoming too geeky on the forum. I would love for you to start a thread on this because the last thing that I would want is for the tone of this forum to put off potential new members or new recruits to the world of the Purple Sunshine (sorry, closest colour I could find).

Alex

[Conky]

Al-K & Al-B,

Fair points, and thats the way it should be done. Listen to all points of view and then go with the majority.
Having aired my concerns, I will now wish this development well, and hope it is as you suggest.

Alan.

[jdaw1]

But we set up this site because of issues surrounding freedom of speech. We freely offer links to his site, and until that is reciprocated, dont agree to piecemeal deals. Just get on with life and wish FTLOP well, but deal with them from a position of strength, and not as somehow subservient.

Broadly, I agree with Conky. Last June I asked a portophile what to do about yet-another-editing of one of my posts (which—horror!—changed not just the words, but also the punctuation!). The portophile checked and expressed surprise that I hadn’t been cc’d about , which I why I joined a day ‘late’.

Now we are being invited to be Roy’s enforcer of Roy’s rules. I decline. In fact, the rules on linking have helped keep me off that forum.

Edit: though I disagree with Conky’s dislike of geekiness. I sometimes post on a forum seeking help (e.g.), exactly because the geekiness reassures me about the frequent posters’ competence.

[Rubby]

But we set up this site because of issues surrounding freedom of speech.

As a newbie (I still see myself as one), I was wondering about this for some time.
I found this forum by Googling for Port related websites. It was also on this forum where I first heard of the FTLOP website, on which I am a lurker for quite some time now.
What is the historical relation between this forum and FTLOP?

If you don't mind me asking...

[KillerB]

But we set up this site because of issues surrounding freedom of speech.

As a newbie (I still see myself as one), I was wondering about this for some time.
I found this forum by Googling for Port related websites. It was also on this forum where I first heard of the FTLOP website, on which I am a lurker for quite some time now.
What is the historical relation between this forum and FTLOP?

If you don't mind me asking...

Now, if you'd met me for that beer I could have told you to your face.

It was set up by a few of us that were on FTLOP. We just wanted a more relaxed place to discuss our passion for Port. Roy has a good site but it can be a little too formal for some of us on the forums. One night we just set this place up with immense help from my wife (Treacle/Tracie) and started posting.

We're still going

[Conky]

But we set up this site because of issues surrounding freedom of speech.

As a newbie (I still see myself as one), I was wondering about this for some time.
I found this forum by Googling for Port related websites. It was also on this forum where I first heard of the FTLOP website, on which I am a lurker for quite some time now.
What is the historical relation between this forum and FTLOP?

If you don't mind me asking...

Rubby

I'll try and explain this one without hopefully re-opening old issues to much, or being judgemental (Which I was at the time)
There were a handful of Posters on FTLOP who watched a situation develop. One particular Poster, was making some rather strong points that the organiser didn't appreciate. There were a few barbed comments and warnings. Then there started to be a few Post deletions, and eventually a Poster was suspended.
This handful of Posters I mentioned thought this suspension a tad severe, but expected the situation to resolve itself. It didn't.
So the idea of another Forum was kicked around, and with the technical ability of KillerBee's better half, Tracey, the idea became reality.
It was founded on the ethics of democracy, with the aims of enjoying and learning about Port. It was also decided to be a little irreverent and humorous.
That also gave us the thought that both this site and FTLOP serve slightly different purposes. I haven't got the right to speak for FTLOP, but it is a little more highbrow and serious. It also has a commercial side, with a holiday/tourism angle.

Anyway, thats the diplomatic and polite version of how it all came to be (I hope!). If you want the juicier, full-blooded version, you'll have to come to a Tasting, and share a few bottles of Purple Sunshine. Mind you, there will be many such tales, and you wont remember half of them the following morning!

Alan

[Rubby]

Thanks for sharing.

[Rubby]

Oh, and I also like to grab this occasion to thank everyone on this forum for their kind help and patience in answering the questions of this newbie.
I've already picked up so much important knowledge in my short stay here.

Tonight I am enjoying my second VP ever (Bomfim 1996, indeed maybe too young, but what a revelation after my first, the Kopke 1980!).

[Simon Lisle]

I broadly agree with Alan as long as it's a two way thing I think there will be no problem.I thought the posting of the harvest tour was a bit of an advert which would cause eruptions if done vice versa.For example if we all organised a trip to the Douro would the ftlop let us post our trip to anyone wanting to join in I think not.But all in all this is a site which takes things in it's stride and we can criticise the port shippers as much as we want without any polite but sometimes terse reply.

[SushiNorth]

Conky won't be the only one with a dissenting opinion on this.

Commercialization of content, particularly content generated by other paying members, always smacks me as an abuse of the open potential of the Web. When I'm not drinking port (or sake), I work with megacorps to explain why -- in web communities -- open is better than closed, and why restrictive forum rules lose out to more permissive systems. I do not think we can prevent our Offlines from being discussed (or linked to, or whatever) elsewhere, but I dislike the idea that they might:
A) Be used as a marketing bullet or be used to profit from the contributions of members here on TPF
B) Become swamped by folks with lots of $$s just looking for the next open port bottle.

Specifically for point B, as members of this community, good behavior and etiquette are demanded at Offlines or we risk being ostracized from the community on the website. Outside joiners are not invested in this community and therefore are not under the same obligation.
Furthermore, only users who are familiar with this community by registering and watching the Offlines list are regularly aware of our events. This makes them knowledgable of who's who, personalities, and the discussions. It provides a common thread at the offlines which non-members won't have. Thus, the price of knowing about offlines is to know about the online activity in the community.

As a compromise, I would propose that people who come to our offlines be members here who have introduced themselves on the introduction forum. I don't think it will happen, but I'd also ask Roy to list this forum as a link in a public (non-member) part of his site if his site will be benefiting from our content.

On a related note, it may be time for a statement about re-use of content from this site (I generally recommend Creative Commons Share-Alike w/ Attribution)

[KillerB]

I would propose that people who come to our offlines be members here who have introduced themselves on the introduction forum.

Good God no. Many of our off-line attendees are friends of site members. The nature of this site is very open and this puts an enormous restriction on the thing that we do best. We will have to see how it progresses before doing anything as drastic as that. Members and invitations only maybe.

May have to look at the content issue though, especially as we now have many members who have joined via Google and Wiki - I don't give a stuff if somebody pinches my {cough} work but others may object. Thanks for the tip.

[DRT]

Jdaw,

Can you create an "I've-opened-a-can-of-worms" emoticon, please?



Derek

[KillerB]

Does anybody object to this thread being split? I will put it in Site Stuff but the discussion is slightly distracting from the point. I don't want to hack it off without getting views, just that most of it is Site Stuff and nothing to do with Tastings.

[DRT]

Please do.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Does anybody object to this thread being split? I will put it in Site Stuff but the discussion is slightly distracting from the point. I don't want to hack it off without getting views, just that most of it is Site Stuff and nothing to do with Tastings.

Yes please.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I broadly agree with Alan as long as it's a two way thing I think there will be no problem.I thought the posting of the harvest tour was a bit of an advert which would cause eruptions if done vice versa.For example if we all organised a trip to the Douro would the ftlop let us post our trip to anyone wanting to join in I think not.But all in all this is a site which takes things in it's stride and we can criticise the port shippers as much as we want without any polite but sometimes terse reply.

Simon,

I want to emphasise that Roy only posted his message about the short duration harvest tour in response to my suggesting that he did so. I have the distinct impression that he would not have done so if
(a) I had not suggested it; or
(b) he had anticipated how much reaction it would have created

However, he did it as a favour for me (believe it or not!) to save me some effort as I was rushed off my feet at the time and did not have decent access to TPF. If Roy hadn't have posted his message, I would have posted a link to it (as I did anyway) and we probably would not have had anything like the same flurry of discussion and messages that followed.

However, this all moves us closer to our next goal of 15,000 messages!

Alex

[Simon Lisle]

I did not know that there was an invitation to post the message however I think it would be a good idea if we had a permanent link for the FTLOP and they had one for the port Forum this would solve quite a few issues arising in the future so people who just happened across either site would be aware of the other.

[jdaw1]

good idea

Websites with an official dogma stating that they are the only website on a topic do not allow outgoing links. Websites intended to help users do encourage relevant outgoing links. is in transition: it might happen, but won’t yet be seen as a “good idea†. Wait a year.

[SushiNorth]

I would propose that people who come to our offlines be members here who have introduced themselves on the introduction forum.

Good God no. Many of our off-line attendees are friends of site members. The nature of this site is very open and this puts an enormous restriction on the thing that we do best. We will have to see how it progresses before doing anything as drastic as that. Members and invitations only maybe.

(Waited for the split)

Members and invitations seems fair, I just want to avoid having our offlines taken advantage of by an uninvested parallel community. I've been to lots of profit-focused tastings, and they tend to involve the tasters "getting the most for their money." I just think members of this community (and their guests) will stay on better behavior.

[Conky]

Sushi,

If it was a very important Tasting, with strictly limited numbers, I agree with you. Members get priority.

But...

Most of our tastings are generally informal, where someones gives up their home and invites a mate to make up numbers. Or they choose London as the venue, and then generally struggle to fill the numbers because of cost for those that cant do a Day-Trip.

So I feel that although you are right theoretically, it would actually be in practice, an unnecessary issue. I'll look forward to when it is a genuine problem though. For example, if you were to make the extra-ordinary effort to cross the pond to attend the Cockburn Tasting in October, I personally would say you would simply have to have a seat at the table, and if thats a problem, we need a bigger table. It's all relative

[RonnieRoots]

First of all, I think it is good that we are now allowed to post links to offlines from ftlop. A number of us post there and it is silly to have to pretend on ftlop that this site doesn't exist. It is always good to meet portlovers from around the world and it's a fact that ftlop has more members than us, just as it's a fact that the majority of worthwhile offlines is organised through this forum.

I always felt Roy was being slightly paranoid by laying out such strict rules. I guess his motivation was mainly protecting the commercial side of the website (his harvest tour and the members area of ftlop). Therein lays also my main objection to his site and the forum. Because there is no clear boundary between the commercial area and the forum (the forum is an open space to chat about port, but it's also used as advertisement space) I become quite hestitant to post on certain topics. Furthermore, I also get suspicious when I see a post from Roy on another forum. E.g. when he posts a tasting note here, I can't help but thinking that he wants to draw attention to his tasting notes database, which is 'subscribers-only'.

What I love about this site is that we are all just a bunch of portloving people, sharing our passion and knowledge. By doing that, we have created an invaluable database of information on ports, producers and tasting notes. And we also get to know new people, who share the same passion.

[10Anos]

Question to those who regularly post on : is it really noticeable that this is a commercial site? In other words: do certain products seem to attract above average attention which can be attributed to e.g. being mentioned more often than other products (read: sponsor vs. non-sponsor-products)?

[DRT]

Question to those who regularly post on : is it really noticeable that this is a commercial site? In other words: do certain products seem to attract above average attention which can be attributed to e.g. being mentioned more often than other products (read: sponsor vs. non-sponsor-products)?

It is noticeable that it is a commercial site, especially from the home page as that's were you will find links to "partner" sites and access to the subscriber only features of the site such as Roy's Tasting Notes, the Newsletter, the Subscription page and info about the travel business side of the site. There is one area on the Forum that is dedicated to Travel (but has morphed into a place to discuss food and Off-lines too) which is where you find the threads promoting specific tours to the Douro and Madeira.

Roy doesn't miss an opportunity to drop a reference to these "products" into some of his posts but, given that this is how he makes a living, I don't consider that to be a problem.

Derek

[Conky]

Question to those who regularly post on : is it really noticeable that this is a commercial site? In other words: do certain products seem to attract above average attention which can be attributed to e.g. being mentioned more often than other products (read: sponsor vs. non-sponsor-products)?

That made me smile. Partcularly when I think of Niepoort.

[DRT]

Question to those who regularly post on : is it really noticeable that this is a commercial site? In other words: do certain products seem to attract above average attention which can be attributed to e.g. being mentioned more often than other products (read: sponsor vs. non-sponsor-products)?

That made me smile. Partcularly when I think of Niepoort.

I hadn't read the question the same was as Alan and was thinking more in terms of 's own products rather than those of their sponsors. On reading Alan's response I searched the FTLOP forum for the word Niepoort and found 139 hits. 13 of these were posted by Roy and 47 by regular posters of

I also did a less detailed search on Taylor and Graham and found that Roy's percentage of the total number of references to those shippers was around 20% rather than the <10% for Niepoort.

I'm not sure if that proves anything or not and, to be honest, I don't know whether or not is sponsored by any of those shippers.

Personally, I would like to see Roy disclose which shippers support just to be completely transparent.

Derek

[RonnieRoots]

Even if he's not being sponsored, there is the issue of his dependency on those shippers who accommodate him during the harvest trips. This makes me doubt the objectivity of his opinions and tasting notes.

[jdaw1]

I am confident that Roy’s TN scores are honest.

My theory is that exists because Roy’s skills as a port narg far exceed his skills as a moderator and webmaster. That’s all. (Roy: before taking offence, as you have sometimes done rather too easily, ask whether you would have preferred me to say that your skills as a moderator and webmaster far exceed those as a port narg. Thought not.)

[Andy Velebil]

Since Roy is in Portugal for the next week or so, allow me to help clarify some things.

Those that know Roy know that his biggest concern is the perception that he is giving better reviews to producers/companies that he knows. That is why FTLOP does not take advertising dollars from any of the producers, unlike some publications (i.e. Wine Spectator as an example). Roy strongly feels this is a major conflict of interest and has stated that from the begining of FTLOP.

As those that know Roy also know he has no issue what-so-ever about giving a poor review when it is so justified. Even if it upsets the producer that he knows. As with any wine critic, they all get to know producers, sometimes very well. I've been around the California wine industry since I was a teenager. I have family and friends that work at wineries, some that are very prominant. As a result I've gotten to know many others at other wineries. As wth anything, the longer you are involved in one activity you get to know others in the same activity. That is just a fact...but does not mean you give them favors by giving better reviews. And I've never ever seen Roy do that.....just ask those that have been on his trips and seen Roy give a poor review with a producer standing in front of him.

As for the trips. Yes it is a travel business and as such the majority of wines on the trip are purchased from the producer. Their are exceptions of course, such as those impromtu moments when a producers opens more than pre-arrainged (for those TPF'rs, think of the Noval dinner and those Nacionals). So have no fear about objectivity there.

Since Niepoort was brought up....I'm glad Derek did his homework. There is no correlation at all and I have no idea how Conky came up with that. I do post a lot of Niepoort TN's, but that is becuase it is easily to find around me and I often by it at discount. It is also a favorite of mine, as I generally like their style. But I've also never been afraid to say if one their products is bad or not.

[DRT]

For the record, I didn't count ADV as a er in the Niepoort stats because of his role as an Admin on . I'm glad he has spoken for himself here as, from memory, I think ADV probably accounted for around 25% of all the posts on Neipoort on

Like Jdaw and ADV I have no doubts about the integrity Roy's TNs, which doesn't mean I agree with them all, and have witnessed him give bad reviews face to face with the producers in the company of many onlookers.

Derek

[Simon Lisle]

I don't beleive Roy's tasting notes are biased either but whenever you need a shipper or shipper's as part of your buisness there will be a conflict of interest.

[RonnieRoots]

Thanks for your clarification Andy. I should probably make clear that I (and I know many others on this forum) value Roy's knowledge very much, and also his sincere meanings when it comes to spreading enthusiasm for portwine.

I don't beleive Roy's tasting notes are biased either but whenever you need a shipper or shipper's as part of your buisness there will be a conflict of interest.

That's what I tried to point out as well. And because the conflicting interests are visible for me (as consumer of Roy's services) I have the problem of not knowing whether his conflicting interests influence his judgement. This is where Roy's position differs from that of other wine critics.

[Andy Velebil]

Like Derek and I have both pointed out, Roy has no problems giving a bad review when warranted. Derek, and many others, have seen it first hand when Roy has done it in front of the producer. So to say Roy is influenced by a producer he knows is total rubbish! When Roy asked me to join the staff at FTLOP, the single biggest factor in me accepting was the fact that I knew Roy gives honest opinions about wines irregardless if he knows the producer or not.

And before you cast stones at one wine reviewer, you would be amazed at what goes on behind the scenes at other wine review publications. Unfortunitly I can't and won't print what I know publicly, but maybe enough purple sunshine in October will lossen my lips .

One more thing...if you think that Suckling, Robinson, and other well known Portuguese wine reviewers arn't friends with the producers, then you need a serious wake up call. Like I said...it happens, your around them a lot reviewing wines, you see them at all the trade shows, etc. Its just natural that you develop relationships with them over time.

BTW, there are people on this forum that know producers too....

Sorry for getting a bit worked up here, but Roy is the most unbaised wine reviewer I know and I take offense when people that don't have all the facts cast stones at him.

Matter of fact, read the current newsletter where he rates Croft and Taylor at a tasting with the heads of TFP. There are plenty of sub-90 points given out. Even an 82 point, and those scores will be published in a book by TFP. So if that don't convince you. I mean, what producer would want their VP scored 82 points!!

[Conky]

Calm down....

Roy is a respected Port expert, and I'm sure I'll agree with you all, that after I've met him, I can agree he's a great bloke.

This thread only started because a few of us didn't think that Roy's policy on limited reciprocal linking should be welcomed with open arms. in fact I have been encouraged to see that quite the opposite is true. Derek, Alex and KillerBee are now fully aware of that, but of course choose to explain their opinions, and why they think it is still a good idea, and to try to explain matters, where they saw misconceptions.

Well I'm afraid that caused people to respond about there perceptions of conflicts of interest. Roy, Andy and many others may know this to be incorrect, and wildly off the mark. I'm happy to accept that, but perceptions still stand.

I'll even explain my Niepoort comment. I felt that this second string Port Producer was given a rather sparkling praise by Roy. He backed it up with praise of Dirk and his production methods and general modern outlook. I always put that down to him being very friendly with Dirk, and how they had a mutually beneficial arrangement. It has nothing to do with Derek's analytical thoughts on number of Posts.

Now I'm happy to admit I'm wrong. Good God, I eulogise about some obscure 85 VP, everyone has their opinions. But the Niepoort angle is a feeling I'm left with, but I've been wrong many times before.

The reason I explain all of this, in probably far too much detail, is that in my opinion there is only one cause of all this sequence of events. That is Roy's ridiculous 'Linking' policy. What has he got to protect? Its only a minor interest Website, like ours (As much as they are dear to our hearts). He attempts to make money out of his and jealously guards and trumpets it. We are more a bunch of happy idiots.

Now there is no law against that, and good luck to him (and us). But there are clearly consequences of doing it a certain way. Not everyone will see the 'sweetness and light' that others do. And sometimes, when its not critical, its best to smile and move on. Not go banging on about misconceptions which lead to more discussion you actually dont want!

I actually now feel a tad uneasy about how Roy make take all this to heart, because he can be a sensitive soul, but I would also have to remind myself I didn't start any of this, I just responded.

Alan.

[Simon Lisle]

The point I was trying to make is that a critic does not rely on a few particular shippers for his sole buisness yes it is obvious that relationships will develop between critics and producers but they don't rely on them for income.But as Alan has said he hit the nail on the head when he mentioned about links between the two websites and how reserved and inward the FTLOP site is.I believe Roy to be a decent fella and have been told so when I asked it, just the rules of the website bother me and there is not much open criticism of the shippers when warranted if he relaxed a bit I might subscribe again just to keep Roy and the site going.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Roy is not perfect, but I think he is no more imperfect than most of the rest of us. One thing that I have learnt from the few years that I have known Roy is that he is scrupulously honest and would rather lose his relationship with a producer than be put in a position where he was expected to say something that he felt was wrong - the opinions on the ports that Taylor Fladgate will be printing is a great example of this. However, as I would be, Roy is careful with his choice of words when writing about producers and tries to be balanced and diplomatic or constructive in his critique of poor wines.

I can say that Roy has also written reviews of wines where he has said plain and clear that a particular port is a stinker. Not something that the producer would be happy to see.

The issue with Roy and Niepoort's wines is one that I would put down to personal preference. It is very clear to me that Roy likes the style and nature of Rolf and Dirk Niepoort's wines (just like Andy does). They just happen to hit the sweet spot in Roy's palate in a way that, say, Noval does with my palate. For this reason, Roy often writes favourable notes about Niepoort ports. Yes, I would say that Roy is biased towards Niepoort's ports but I would argue long and loud that this has nothing to do with friendship or commercial arrangements and everything to do with Roy's interpretation of the port he is drinking. (Plus any planned visit to Niepoort could easily be replaced on Roy's Douro Tour if it had to be.)

As an aside, I should declare that I do subscribe to FTLOP as (a) I want to see it continue and it will only do so over the long term if it is able to cover its costs and (b) I enjoy reading Roy's newsletters and respect the effort and time that is required to create each one - and the subscription price means that each newsletter is still cheap compared to a copy of Decanter or Wine Spectator but has much more Port content than either of those two magazines.

Alex

[DRT]

I actually now feel a tad uneasy about how Roy make take all this to heart, because he can be a sensitive soul, but I would also have to remind myself I didn't start any of this, I just responded.

Being the person who posted the announcement that resulted in all of the above debate I can agree with Alan's feelings of discomfort at the thought of Roy reading this thread.

Whilst I agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this or any other matter I have to say I am extremely disappointed that what I had niaively intended to be a positive first step in a direction that all of us seem to agree on has developed into a open discussion which includes attacks on Roy's professional and personal integrity. Again, everyone is entitled to think whatever they choose of Roy or anyone else but I don't think airing those views on a public forum is either necessary or helpfull. Roy is a member of this Forum and will read this thread. Those of us who know him, even if they have not yet met him, have a good idea how he will react when he does. I would ask everyone to ponder what they might feel themselves if all of the other members here had a public discussion which cast doubts on your integrity or re-opened discussion on old disputes that you thought had been put behind you. Not nice.

We have had the debate and everyone here now knows where each of us stand. May I respectfully suggest that we now cast a vote each as to whether or not this thread should be deleted and not kept as a permanent and publicly visible record of the personal opinions, likes and dislikes of one of our members?

I vote Delete

Derek

[Rubby]

After reading this highly interesting thread I have a better understanding of where the FTLOP website stands, both commercially ánd in relation to this forum.

Personaly, I always valued the TN's on the FTLOP forum higher than Roy's personal TN's, simply because they're the opinion of one man (as experienced as he may be) and the TN's on the forum are in many cases commented on and enhanced (is that the right word?) by other users. My feeling is that in most cases they are much more spontaneous and less pretentious.
This said, I have much respect for Mr. Hersh's knowledge, experience and enthousiasm.

I don't think that any member of this forum should feel uncomfortable coming here. Everyone should feel welcome unless they deliberately keep breaking forum rules.
Everybody has said what they wanted to say.
I can imagine it is not nice logging on to a forum as a member, only to find that people have been discussing your person.

Therefor I say delete.

However, I think the forum administrator should keep a copy of this thread. Should Mr. Hersh learn about this thread in any way in the future, he's entitled to read it.

[DRT]

However, I think the forum administrator should keep a copy of this thread. Should Mr. Hersh learn about this thread in any way in the future, he's entitled to read it.

A very good point.

Derek

[jdaw1]

Whilst I agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this or any other matter I have to say I am extremely disappointed that what I had niaively intended to be a positive first step in a direction that all of us seem to agree on has developed into a open discussion which includes attacks on Roy's professional and personal integrity.

Wrong. Plain and simple wrong. We have discussed the various nuances of what honesty means for a critic with friends in the business, and have all agreed that Roy is honest. Nobody has disagreed with that. Roy should be pleased.

Again, everyone is entitled to think whatever they choose of Roy or anyone else but I don't think airing those views on a public forum is either necessary or helpfull.

Much of what we write is neither necessary nor helpful. So what?

Roy is a member of this Forum and will read this thread. Those of us who know him, even if they have not yet met him, have a good idea how he will react when he does.

Interesting. And not far from the point. Compare to:

My theory is that exists because Roy’s skills as a port narg far exceed his skills as a moderator and webmaster. That’s all. (Roy: before taking offence, as you have sometimes done rather too easily, ask whether you would have preferred me to say that your skills as a moderator and webmaster far exceed those as a port narg. Thought not.)

We have not criticised his port honesty; we have grumbled about his Web 2.0 handling. That is fair comment, in public or private.

I would ask everyone to ponder what they might feel themselves if all of the other members here had a public discussion which cast doubts on your integrity or re-opened discussion on old disputes that you thought had been put behind you. Not nice.

Not nice, but fair. He has opened these matters to the public comment by being being a self-promoting critic of the subject of this forum. Further, he should be pleased that the matter of integrity was settled, quite strongly, in his favour.

We have had the debate and everyone here now knows where each of us stand. May I respectfully suggest that we now cast a vote each as to whether or not this thread should be deleted and not kept as a permanent and publicly visible record of the personal opinions, likes and dislikes of one of our members?

So you want the thread to be deleted, but a copy sent to Roy? Where would he make a public reply? (This resembles each edition of Private Eye being published by a separate company.) I think it stands, and if Roy feels unfairly treated, he has adequate right of reply.

Keep. Maybe lock the thread, and send a note to Roy saying that it would be unlocked for his reply, should he wish to make one.

Derek: we would be appalled if Roy deleted all his TNs critical of a port maker. Why is this different? Because Roy is important in the port world? Interesting.

[jdaw1]

However, I think the forum administrator should keep a copy of this thread. Should Mr. Hersh learn about this thread in any way in the future, he's entitled to read it.

A very good point.

Actually, the thread shouldn’t be a dirty little secret: somebody should send him a link to this thread. Unless there’s disagreement, or earlier action, I will.

[DRT]

Julian,

You and I obviously disagree on this but I don't think there is anything to be gained in the two of us thrashing it out here. Let's see how others feel about it and take it from there.

Derek

[RonnieRoots]

I don't know if any of the comments I made could be read as attacks on Roy's integrity, or throwing stones at him, but that was certainly not the intention. I don't question his integrity. As I said in my previous reply, I am sure his meanings are sincere. But I do feel uncomfortable with the conflict of interests he's facing.

I felt this discussion was very civilised. It is certainly a shame that the thread started at a time when Roy isn't able to reply himself, as I would very much value his take on things. My suggestion would be to keep it up to the point where arguments get repetitive, and lock it.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I vote keep.

The reason for this is that although it may be painful and uncomfortable for Roy to read this thread, I would urge him not to see it as personal criticism but to recognise it as what it is - merely a number of people who are port-lovers actually putting into writing their worries and concerns about Roy's ability to navigate the very difficult path of being deeply involved with key people in the port-trade yet offering most value to port-lovers through his independance.

I am sure that there are more people in the world who have these concerns than those who wrote here. A handful of us are lucky enough to know Roy reasonably well and we have been given the opportunity to emphasise our thoughts and views on Roy's independence. It's probably more persuasive to hear these views from us than it is to hear them from Roy.

So I vote to keep the thread. Roy should read through it and be given the chance to reply, should he wish to. I believe that most of the thread is a fair summary of the doubt and cynicism that will exist in the minds of many people, but has been balanced by the views and perceptions of a number of the people on this forum who have personal knowledge of Roy and his values.

Alex

[KillerB]

I have no doubts about Roy's integrity and trust that every review that he gives is with the utmost honesty.

I'm not going to give my opinion on whether this thread should be deleted or not, but in my role as primary Admin I will be the one to delete if that is the prevailing opinion. I separated this thread as I felt that it was getting in the way of an announcement. Also I did not want to stop people voicing opinions as long as they were neither libelous nor insulting.

This is an open forum as long as everybody adheres to the rules, which I will repeat:

1. Be civil - no flaming, no obscene swearing, no insults, no racism, no sexism, no political fights. Teasing is fine but nothing offensive. Basically be nice. Let's make this the nicest site on the web.

2. No pornography, no spam, no violent images. Links can be made to other sites for reference but nothing offensive.

3. Try to keep to the topic and if you can't then at least be amusing. That's amusing for others not just yourself.

4. Don't pinch other people's work without sticking it in quotes and leaving a reference or link. No names no pack-drill.

Rule 1 is the one we have to be careful of here - has Roy been insulted? He is a member of our site and should be treated with respect and not feel uncomfortable about posting here in the future. Currently, he is not in a position to defend himself.

If anybody feels that he has been insulted then show me the precise point and I will take action if I think that it is necessary. Remember that you can always report abuse of the rules, at any time, to me or any of the administrators.

[DRT]

Having read the words of Alex and Ronald I have come to the conclusion that I am being over-sensitive to the existence of this thread.

This is probably due to my part in the circumstances that lead to the creation of TPF, a subject that I have absolutely no wish to see reported or debated here or anywhere else, combined with the fact that it was I would took it upon myself to attempt to persuade Roy to relax his rule on posting links to TPF from FTLOP.

If this thread had started as a debate about Roy's role as a critic and his friendship with certain shippers I would not be feeling the way I do. Although I think that debate would be more appropriate to have on FTLOP than here. But it didn't start that way, it started with me announcing that Roy had agreed to allow links to Off-line threads and was followed by open critisism of his policies and a description of how this site came to exist. As I have said previously, I find any discussion on the circumstances that lead to the existence of TPF to be unnecessary and unhelful. It is also something that those of us who were around at the time chose, and I believe agreed, not to do when we set-up this site. If Roy's site policies are to be challenged I think that is more constructively approached in private or on his site, not here.

I hereby change my vote to keep.

Derek

[DRT]

1. Be civil - no flaming, no obscene swearing, no insults, no racism, no sexism, no political fights. Teasing is fine but nothing offensive. Basically be nice. Let's make this the nicest site on the web.

Rule 1 is the one we have to be careful of here - has Roy been insulted? He is a member of our site and should be treated with respect and not feel uncomfortable about posting here in the future. Currently, he is not in a position to defend himself.

If anybody feels that he has been insulted then show me the precise point and I will take action if I think that it is necessary. Remember that you can always report abuse of the rules, at any time, to me or any of the administrators.

Can I ask what "no flaming" is intended to mean?

Thanks

Derek

[KillerB]

Flaming is where one poster starts an on-line fight with another and it becomes unpleasant. It is not necessarily direct insults but it is nasty. I think that there is no nastiness here.

[DRT]

I took it to mean not making a situation worse than it needs to be, and I applied that to my thoughts on the discussion in this thread on how this site came to be.

As for judging what is and isn't insulting, I think we need Roy's view before any of us could be sure.

Derek