From the topic Extended statement of the CriticalDance courtesy rule:

Criticaldance is an artist-friendly website and we want artists to be able to log on without fear of reading discourteous remarks about themselves, their friends or those they respect. Here are some guidelines to help people understand what we mean by our "courtesy rule" as applied to postings here. Where the Moderator team believes the guidelines have been breached we will usually contact the poster first, but we will take direct action if necessary. The decision of the Moderators is final. Repeated breaking of the courtesy rule or single instances of libellous postings may lead to the suspension of posting rights.
Reviews - This is a primary area where our "courtesy" rule applies. Critics were once described as, "Like those who observe a battle from a hill and afterwards go down and torment the wounded." In general we seek to maintain a high standard in this regard and thus you should not be guided by what you read elsewhere. We will request or make changes to postings where we feel our guidelines have been breached. Please remember that reviewers, especially relative newcomers, need to bear in mind:
- negative reviews have their place, but if you comment on a dance you didn't care for, it is helpful to say exactly what you disliked about it, and why. Remember that when you write it may be your credibility that suffers rather than that of the artist. For your first few reviews, we recommend that you stick to performances that you enjoyed.
- while passion is fine in a positive sense it needs to be treated with care when applied to negative criticism. In addition, moderate language and a constructive attitude will enhance your credibility. Mark Morris has said that he would rather read constructive criticism than bland appreciation.
- the artist may read the report and you should be happy to defend your words in person to the individual concerned. Imagine yourself in that position and if it would cause you undue embarressment than don't write it.
- a particular performance by a dancer or a company may have been disappointing, but avoid generalisations such as "X is a sloppy dancer", unless you have seen them several times and you are sure of your ground. If other people have expressed a view you can mention that by reference, but it is not appropriate to try and pass that view off as your own.
- from time to time many of us make quiet remarks in private about performances to close friends, but these are often unsuitable for publication on a website or elsewhere.

Ms. Kanter, if you will email your review to me, I will be happy to point out, line by line, where it was in violation of this policy.

<small>[ 10 June 2003, 05:06 AM: Message edited by: salzberg ]</small>

Dear Mr. Salzberg,

Might I suggest that you may have read my post above a little too hastily ?

Its subject is NOT a review. One can of course understand - though not perhaps as readily accept - that the editorial staff of CriticalDance might not wish to allow the present writer to post up her own, controversial, reviews on your Site. Fine ! That is your privilege.

However, we are talking about something quite different here. The subject of my post above, was the posting of a mere LINK, to an interview on http://auguste.vestris.free.fr, with the French artist Jean Guizerix. The man is a recognised authority in the area of classical dance.

For CriticalDance to allow a third party to post such a Link does not, surely, compromise your own editorial staff, nor does it represent, in any way shape or form, an endorsement of M. Guizerix's views.

Why someone chose to promptly strike down that Link thus remains, to my mind, an intriguing question.

Katherine, the response of the CriticalDance.com volunteer staff will only make sense if you accept its decision and the reasoning for the decision. Will you abide by the final decision? Otherwise, there is no point for our volunteer staff to spend meagre resources to deliberate on this issue.

If you promise to abide by CD.com's final decision by stating so in this topic, then we will promise to give the matter the utmost care and respond here in writing.

Hello Azlan.

Thank you for responding. My own reply has been delayed by a General Strike.

We seem to have run up against a further misunderstanding here.

I crave no favours, nor do I plead for a “final decision”. The editors of CriticalDance had already made their “final decision” clear, one would have thought, in blacking out the Link to M. Guizerix’ words.

Truth will out however, and it will out, one way or another.

I was simply attempting to draw to the attention of your readership, the fact that certain of your moderators choose to disregard your own stated policies. An incoherency, particularly to the eyes of those who read French, and are thus quite “au fait” of the goings-on on the French side of your Web Site.

The fact that one strongly disagree with another’s views does not justify – at least not in my book - attempting to make out that such views do not even exist.

Speaking of Criticaldance's "stated policies"....

Just so there's no misunderstanding, the article to which you were linking was one which you had previously submitted to Criticaldance.com and which had been rejected as being in flagrant violation of our courtesy rule.

I'm sure you meant to mention that, but forgot.

I think one way to handle subjects or articles that may be to controversial for this website, which by the way, does have a fairly broad age range, is to give a limited summary of the article or subject matter, and give the adult members the option of contacting you directly.
For example, if on one of our discussions the subject of the Iraq War came up, and I wanted to pursue that in depth with one of the other members, then it is pretty clear that this is not the place for that discussion. Similarly, a too vigorous critique of dance for this website, may be of marked interest to some of us, but could be handled more discreetly.
Why not simply say that you have some fairly thought provoking views regarding dance that may be too controversial for this site, but if anyone is interested then they can contact you directly via email. My curiosity has certainly been raised. I am also curious how much of this is due to different views/morals between the French and Americans - god only knows we have plenty of communication difficulties there already.

By the way Katharine, I did have a chance to look at your website and I willl say that it certainly is quite though provoking. Trust me, anyone that brings up "Nietzschian" in a discussion regarding ballet has my full attention, and hopefully you will allow me to contribute sonmething on your website regarding how postmodern philosophy has impacted dance. Also, I do think that a serious discussion on how ballet technique has changed, and whether it is to the benefit or detriment of ballet is very reasonable. That being said, I think that it is more the tone that you bring in your comments that is not appropriate for this site. ( Gosh , for a second there I thought that you were a London Dance critic ).
I am curious if you will allow serious essays on your site that challenge your views and perhaps make you see beyond them. I am curious, have you lost sight of the Joy in dance? I have always seen ballet as a Zarathustrian bridge between what is classic and what lays ahead, a key into some of the philisophical debates of our time. That discussion can be had without mockery, don't you think?

Katherine, the fact that we have let you post here unabated is contrary to your assertions, no?

Mr. Salzberg wrote:

“Just so there's no misunderstanding, the article to which you were linking was one which you had previously submitted to Criticaldance.com and which had been rejected as being in flagrant violation of our courtesy rule. I'm sure you meant to mention that, but forgot.”

Dear Mr. Salzberg,

First, as I have already said, the contentious item was NOT an article. It was, I repeat, an interview with M. Jean Guizerix, former étoile and maître de ballet at the Paris Opera, former professor at the CNSM, now head of the Ballet du Nord.

Secondly, M. Guizerix' remarks were discourteous to no-one.

Had your Chief Editor Stuart Sweeney thought anything of the sort, he would undoubtedly have said so, when he wrote to me declining to publish. To the contrary ! He suggested I propose the interview to other publications ! Mr. Sweeney might wish to post up here the e-mail he sent me at the time, just to make the point clear.

Thirdly, the Link to the Interview was torn down, according to an e-mail I received from your moderator Miss C. Schemm, NOT because the aforesaid interview was “discourteous”, but because that lady considered it “polemical”, and was –I quote - “opposed” to it.

You do not know me, Sir, but I was, so to speak, “brought up a gentleman”, and would never propose material that I thought was coarse or insulting to the profession. For one artist of renown – such as M. Guizerix - to voice a critique of other adult and experienced professionals, is NOT the same, as being coarse or insulting.

And it is NOT the same, as those who would reduce a seventeen-year old novice to the stage, to tears (Cf. the Danser en Français Thread, “Assez c’est Assez”).

Now, in the disputed interview, M. Guizerix is heard to quote Rudolf Nureyev’s harsh words on the matter of picking up the leg. And M. Guizerix himself expresses doubts, in respect of the present descent of the ballet, world-wide, into what he deems to be acrobatics and indecency.

What, in Heaven’s Name, is “discourteous” about that ?

I think you might need to differentiate between yourself and M. Guizerix, as well as differentiating between the benign idea of an interview with a personality and a newsworthy event, as well as differentiating between courteous posting behavior and what you had been doing, as well as differentiating between welcome discourse and spam e-mails, which I understand you had sent to some CD subscribers. Start there.

<small>[ 11 June 2003, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: librarian ]</small>

I think KK is splitting hairs.

Whether the contentious item was an "article" or "interview" matters little. Same for the two-line moniker after M. Guizerix's name. Artistic achievement is NOT a license for discourtesy, even if some ballet organizations tolerate it.

KK claims as a blanket statement his remarks were discourteous to no-one. That is her opinion, but irrelevant. More to the point, the remarks are violations of CD's courtesy policy (I read them). I quote just one of the most flagrant violations here: "let's turn to XXXXXXX! A blank, in terms of artistic thought and emotion" (where XXXXXXX is an art/sport somewhat related to dance). This statement is discourteous to everyone who has put in countless hours at XXXXXXX, most of them likely seeking to find artistic thought and emotion in it. And the interview just continues in the same tone from there.

Stuart Sweeney almost certainly suggested publishing the article elsewhere out of politeness --- a politeness that is refreshing to see at CD. Only someone wishing to twist his words would take that to mean he didn't have a problem with the interview, because he did --- as stated many times, in violates CD's courtesy policy.

Whatever Ms. Schemm said is not incredibly relevant at this time --- apparently, she gave her own opinion of the interview and may not have expressed 100% clearly that it violates CD board policy as well as being distastful to her. Many moderators have looked at the article, have given it a second chance in case Ms. Schemm had made an error in judgement, and have agreed that it is discourteous. I can say that CD allows many, many COURTEOUS posts with which the moderators disagree.

Sincerely,
Dr. Robert F. Ph.D, former chief financial database architect, former student at Yale and Harvard, inventor of Clilets, now danseur and research scientist for patient privacy, son of the distinguished and soon-to-be-honored Professor Dr. Michael F.

<small>[ 11 June 2003, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: citibob ]</small>

Dear Sir or Madam "Librarian",

I think you might want to read the contentious interview first, before suggesting that I have confused my own views - NOT under discussion here - with those of the person being interviewed. There is no misrepresentation, and no confusion.

As for the SPAM allegation: Not a single day goes by, but that I receive unsolicited messages from CriticalDance readers who use my e-mail address, as it appears on the CriticalDance profile.

As all those private messages have been unfailingly friendly and courteous, I have, as yet, seen no reason to complain to CriticalDance. For my part, I have taken the liberty of using the e-mail address as it appears on the profiles of half a dozen of your readers, to "round-robbin" the Vestris URL.

There is nothing wrong with that, as "Vestris" is strictly not-for-profit, has no forum, no postings page, nor is it in any way shape or form, a "competitor" to CriticalDance.

Or might you perhaps be suggesting that I too, should complain to you, about your own subscribers who have themselves taken the liberty of writing to me - unsolicited ?

If you don't want to receive e-mails, "katherine", then complain away. But I would bet that if you're being written to it is most probably not to promote a web site, whether for profit or not. And I have no intention of getting into any more conversation with you.

<small>[ 11 June 2003, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: librarian ]</small>

Dear Sir or Madam,

I fail to understand your allegation as to the contents of the private messages sent to me. To be perfectly frank, they have - to date - contained nothing but amiable suggestions and remarks in relation to essays that appear on the Vestris site.

However, your point is well taken. Perhaps we would all be well-advised to lapse into dignified silence.

Folks, let's all take a deep breath....

Ms. Kanter, as I see it (and other moderators might disagree; we certainly don't all agree on everything), the issue is that after your article was rejected on the grounds that it clearly violated the courtesy rule, you attempted what we Americans call an "end run".

This is a moderated bulletin board. Users participate with the clear understanding that there are certain policies that must be adhered to. Your actions demonstrate that you are unwilling to accept that. This is unfortunate -- and reminds me of my nephew Zachary, who behaves in much the same way.

Of course, Zachary is only 3 years old.