C9 (dispute) [Archive] - THE TOLKIEN FORUM

Walter

08-10-2002, 07:00 PM

Beorn,

I purposely had opened a thread in Entmoot - the proper place how I think - to discuss this issue - without much interference from the moderators - among the members, where I stated what the intentions of the thread were:

Originally posted by Walter
Since the WM and the staff have ventured into suggesting the idea of a C9 (which should represent the "missing link" between membership and staff, or the "House of Commons" of this forum, I think it appropriate to discuss this idea and it's realization here as well.

This thread is intended to be the proper place:

A) to discuss the idea in general and a suitable name for this "institution",
B) to discuss the process of choosing and installing it,
C) to discuss what the duties and the rights of this institution should be (from the standpoint of the membership) and
D) to apply or to suggest people who should apply.

Removed a bad link

You have merged the thread with this one - unasked for, of course - fine! You have edited my former post to remove the link to this thread, fine. Now you come and say "there will be another thread soon..", fine again...

But please, may we members discuss this without the "big eye" watching us and constantly "guiding" us? Thank You!

We will make our nominations, don't sweat, but we would also like to discuss it first...

Beorn

08-10-2002, 07:14 PM

Just trying to save everyone from posting nominations here, then having to come back copy, paste, etc...

I'm surprised that there haven't been more replies to this thread, is it because people feel watched? I'm not trying to watch over everything, it's just that I'm trying to keep it all organized, having two different threads in different forums about the same exact thing isn't organized. Merging the threads: Organization. Removing the link: Organization. Informing you that there's going to be a seperate thread: Organization.

Walter

08-10-2002, 07:44 PM

Beorn,

your first post in this thread was an Announcement. Mine in Entmoot was an attempt to start a member's discussion about the things you suggested. In Entmoot, the proper forum for such discussions.

Your first reply was already discouraging, I mean you put up the whole issue and when we members are about to start discussing it, you say more or less: "Guys it's too early, we don't even know if we will grant you that favour at all..."

IMHO You have not done us a favour by "organizing" things your way, but rather have been making OUR decisions...

My last post was not a nomination on behalf of the members, it was a suggestion, mainly done to get a discussion about the nominations started, encouraging my fellow members to bring in their suggestions and start discussing the issue. When we're done discussing we will post our nominations, if we can't get that done without moderators constantly "lending us a helping hand", we will get what we deserve...

Lessez faire...

Beorn

08-10-2002, 11:18 PM

Well, please then forgive me for trying to help. Would you like me to split everything up, replace the link, and remove my comments?

Walter

08-11-2002, 01:46 AM

Just in case anyone wants to discuss the process of submitting the 18 members and their nomination to the staff without prying eyes from the staff:

I have just opened a Yahoo-Group "TTF-C9", if you would like to join, just send an email to TTF-C9-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Once you sent the mail you will get a mail asking you to confirm your request. By replying to this email (just clicking on reply & then send will do, you don't have to actually write anything) you will be added to the group.

After the C9 is established, I will hand over the group to the head
of the council and withdraw myself, but the group might remain useful for further discussions...

Beorn

08-11-2002, 02:24 AM

OK, let me get this straight:

I announced the idea and made it as clear as possible that nothing is sure, and that nothing in it is sure ("That exact nature of that mechanism is still in development. ")
I again said that nothing is set in concrete yet, and said that things here would be suggestions, not definite pillars of the C9
I tried to get this more organized for everyone
You posted your nominations, even though my original post laid out the idea of the nominations (the 7 day period....AFAIK, hasn't started yet). Yet, there is no laid out plan for the nominations, we haven't even decided who's going to vote: the membership or the staff (I think it should be the membership sans staff)
I informed you that the nominations thread would be posted soon, so that everyone wouldn't be posting their nominations here, but rather on the correct thread.
You criticized me for trying to help (not as staff, but as a member), trying to keep you up-to-date on the situation that you have taken and ran with.
I told you the motives behind my actions. (Note: I merged the threads not only so that things wouldn't be strewn about the place, but because I had intended the discussion to take place here when I started this thread)
You told me that I wasn't helping.
You told me "Lessez faire..." meaning leave alone, which is just complete ingratitude for the help I tried to provide
Considering that you were ingrateful for my attempted help, I offered to UNDO ALL that I had done,
My offer was rejected without a word, just a nose turned in the air: You created your own place where you could make sure the 'prying eyes of the staff' weren't watching, for what reason, pray tell.

I'm beginning to think of renaming this thread 'Walter's Coup' (note my Custom User Text :rolleyes: )

Please explain why you felt I wasn't helping.
Please explain why you said "you say more or less: "Guys it's too early, we don't even know if we will grant you that favour at all..."" even though I said 'feel free to suggest ideas.
Please explain why my offer to undo all that I had done was rejected
And most importantly, I feel, why you seem to have taken it upon yourself to make nominations and discussions for more nominations, when from my point of view, it was intended to be completely open.

If you hadn't noticed you've gotten me quite riled, which most people is quite hard. It's the least I had expected.

Walter

08-11-2002, 11:29 AM

Beorn

The concept of the C9 - as put forth by the WM - is a bloody brilliant idea. We - the membership - will get the feeling we have at least some saying here, you - the staff - will not have to give up control and still have the final saying. Plus, some uncomfortable situations - e.g.like dealing with renitent members, unpopular decisions from the management, etc. - will have to be dealt with by the C9 first and hence the C9 would actually be an "instrument" to smoothen the tidal waves going to and fro the staff (or vice versa). It looks like a win - win situation.

Many members like and support this idea because it is a step into the right direction: A step towards - a little - more democracy. By announcing this "idea" you have initiated a democratic process. What you have yet to learn is, that democratic processes can neither be exactly predicted nor totally controlled.

With your reactions - no matter how good your intentions were - after I had created the thread in Entmoot, you have IMO done two things: One the one hand - with your postings - you have tried to "guide" the process of opinion-forming within the membership. On the other hand - with your actions of merging the threads and editing member's posts - you have constantly reminded us, who really is "in charge of things" here...

With creating the Yahoo-group I wanted to offer the membership a possibility to exchange ideas about the C9 without being constantly guided or controlled. Whether the membership will accept this offer or not, I cannot say. But I feel the membership has a right to discuss things without being constantly told what we are allowed to discuss and what not.

Mike, you are incredibly mature for your age, but there are still things you could learn from others. If you would lean back some and observe what others do - e.g the WM or RD - and what not, you could learn a lot about strategy and decency, or if you observe the flowers or trees, or maybe just watch the clouds, you could learn a lot about life...

Let's just settle this and see how things develop from here

DGoeij

08-11-2002, 01:03 PM

I like the idea of the C9, It would give some room for settling disputes and taking away frustrations which otherwise easily could turn into flame wars in the small corners of the forum.
Please do realize it's the summer holiday currently. I can imagine a lot of members not being aware of this debate because they are on vacation. I'm back for three days and just bumped into this thread.
I feel more than honoured that Walter finds me worthy enough for this council. If it is ever installed.
A membership for 'life' is not a good idea, so I agree on the terms and the voting by members. I really hope it can work as the 'third party' next to members and moderators.

Beorn

08-11-2002, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Walter
Mike, you are incredibly mature for your age, but there are still things you could learn from others. If you would lean back some and observe what others do - e.g the WM or RD - and what not, you could learn a lot about strategy and decency, or if you observe the flowers or trees, or maybe just watch the clouds, you could learn a lot about life...

"Maturity is achieved when a person postpones immediate pleasures for long-term values." Joshua L. Liebman

I now understand your position, and your motives (after some thought), as I was once in the exact same spot, but I was you, and RW was I.

What irked me was how you said I was guiding you, yet I cannot find such a case.

Oh well, I'll let it drop for now.

Rangerdave

08-12-2002, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by Beorn

but I was you, and RW was I.

As you are he and we are she and we are all together.

I am the Eggman
I am the Eggman
I am the Walrus

Coo-coo-ca-choob

I felt that a little humor was needed at this juncture

RD

Walter

08-12-2002, 08:08 AM

I told you about the walrus and me man,
you know that we're as close as can be man,
well here's another clue for you all:
The walrus was Paul...

...nice meeting Ya, RD, may I call you "Paul"? :D

ReadWryt

08-12-2002, 07:05 PM

This is really interesting, so you are going to go and start a discussion group to talk about something that may or may not happen (I personally wish for the latter) because you don't want "the staff" interupting, upsetting, organizing or otherwise involving themselves in the process? Ok, I retract my "vote" for Walter as a member of the 9...if someone cannot go to the Webmaster and discuss opening a section of the forum that would be announced as off limits for anything but the most mundane babysitting by the staff (Stoping fights, removing profanity...wiping filthy bottoms...) but instead effectively starts an unmoderated extension of the forum for which the content would presumably have some sort of effect obviously has missed the whole idea behind having a council of 9, which is to broach needs, desires and complaints to the operators of THIS Forum on behalf of the membership...

Walter

08-12-2002, 07:25 PM

You are missing the boat here, RW, I have already explained on the predecessor of this thread why I feel I shouldn't apply for the C9.

However you - the mods - are having an own private forum to discuss things behind the curtains, so I think it only fair and reasonable for the members interested in the C9 or lateron the C9 itself to have a place to discuss things concerning the forum, that is disclosed from the eyes of the staff as well.

But I am not surprised, that you don't like the idea of something you cannot control. Let me repeat it once again: THIS Forum, IMO, is the total of the membership, not the staff only...

DGoeij

08-12-2002, 09:36 PM

You know I had an entire class about situations like this at university just before the summer vacation?
I know how it sounds, but I really mean this. Consider a country where a considerable part of the population wishes for more democracy (whatever that may be). The ruling party is not unwilling, but does not wish to let things get out of hand (whatever that may be). The smallest bit of friction, enhanced by distrust from both sides, can easily turn the situation in a state of civil war.

I do not fear bloodshed on an internet forum, but if the current speakers can step on their personal brakes and reconsider what they wish to achieve, it could be prevented anyway. Thank you.

Now, a C9 is not a bad idea IMHO, but some talk and consideration (and why not in this thread?) is a rather good idea. First of all, not even all the people mentioned have responded here, let alone other members. I cannot see why it should be rushed, nor can I see why it shouldn't be discussed either. If members feel the need for a body like the C9, let them discuss it, so it can become clear if the need is there. It's way to early to talk about candidates if the instalment of the council itself is not that sure.
To clear things up:
Is the staff (by lack of a better word for our team of moderators and the Webmeister) in favour (or at least not against) a Council of Nine in the form as it has been recently discussed?

And if not, do the members of TTF feel the need for a Council of Nine and would they like it to be created?

And I believe the second question has to be discussed here, between all the members as it owuld be their Council, and moderators, since they would have to deal with this Council.

*Stepping of his soapbox, ready for howls of disagreement*

Beorn

08-12-2002, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by DGoeij
To clear things up:
Is the staff (by lack of a better word for our team of moderators and the Webmeister) in favour (or at least not against) a Council of Nine in the form as it has been recently discussed?

I'm in favor of it because it gives more say to the members about decisions regarding themselves....

Walter

08-13-2002, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by DGoeij
...The smallest bit of friction, enhanced by distrust from both sides, can easily turn the situation in a state of civil war.

I do not fear bloodshed on an internet forum, but if the current speakers can step on their personal brakes and reconsider what they wish to achieve, it could be prevented anyway...Not to worry...bloodshed won't happen here, not unless RW would own a private gun...wait...ut oh...I guess I'm in trouble... :D

Seriously, what IMO is happening in this thread is still a civilized debate about a suggestion originally made by the WM.

I for my part firmly believe, that the vast majority of the membership are educated, opinionated, honourable and valuable contributors of this forum, mature and capable of making this one of the best Tolkien-related BBS-Forums on the net. IMO every contributor of this forum is as worthy as each and any of the staff or management, hence a little democracy would suit this forum well and I will appreciate and support every little step into that direction.

On the other hand, it is perfectly understandable, that some who are at the helm right now, may feel threatened by every step towards democracy, especially when one sees the membership as an immature and chaotic bunch that needs to be "babysat", "stopped from fighting", a.s.o.

I think it will just take some time for both parties - membership and staff - to consider each other as equal partners with basically the same intention: To spread and discuss the word of J.R.R. Tolkien, author of the 20th century in an amicable and comfortable environment.

ReadWryt

08-13-2002, 05:00 AM

But I am not surprised, that you don't like the idea of something you cannot control.

You may wish to paint it as a "Control" issue, I just don't like the idea of Forum matters being handled outside of the Forum...period. I don't care if the Webmaster sets up a subforum here that the Mods don't even have access to if that would help matters any, it would just have to be made clear to the members who used it that it was an unmoderated section of the forum and could be abused by people in ways that might offend them...

No, you know what? Screw this. This is NOT a Democracy as defined by Walter, this is quite obviously a "Waltocracy". After the C9 is established, I will hand over the group to the head
Before tugging at what might be perceived as a splinter of control in my eye I would suggest perhaps removing the 2x4 from your own...

However you - the mods - are having an own private forum to discuss things behind the curtains, so I think it only fair and reasonable for the members interested in the C9 or lateron the C9 itself to have a place to discuss things concerning the forum, that is disclosed from the eyes of the staff as well.
...as frightening as this might seem to you, the staff often discuss things that are planned for the Forum without sharing it with the Membership in general. It's the way that the Webmaster set the site up, if you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with the guy who pays the bills and maintains the bandwidth...After all, he IS the one who will be having the final say in how the C9 is set up, not the Members.
On the other hand, it is perfectly understandable, that some who are at the helm right now, may feel threatened by every step towards democracy, especially when one sees the membership as an immature and chaotic bunch that needs to be "babysat", "stopped from fighting", a.s.o.

Those are your words twisted around mine, not my words as I used them. IF you would prefer an unmoderated environment where people can use whatever language they care to, attack anybody they want in any way they want and generally act in ways that get people kicked off of this place then I suggest the ultimate "Democracy", the News Groups. Otherwise this will STILL be a moderated forum in which rules apply against many forms of nastiness.

I don't know what your passive agressive little political game is here, or why you insist on misquoting and twisting the words of people, but as long as you are not breaking the rules in doing it I cannot say that there is anything wrong with it technically. If you have a problem with an act taken by a moderator, like the merging of two threads that appear to be on the same subject, then I would urge you to write a PM first to them and barring satisfaction from that, to me. If you have a problem with me, I would suggest you write to the Webmaster. In any event if you think that you are some crusader who by baiting, cajoling and twisting the words of the staff will rally the membership behind you in making changes to the Forum then more power to you my friend...in the end it will not have anything to do with anything you or I say or do here or elsewhere but instead will be decided by the Big Guy, the man at the top...the `ole W.M...

Walter

08-13-2002, 10:59 AM

Members must not violate the rules of this forum, some moderators - evidently - may do so as they see fit. "Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi", as the old romans used to call that. Hence I am not going to analyze RW's post or share my view about his personality, for I might violate rules with that.

But what I would like to mention is, that I have been a contributing member ever since the day I have joined. And I think I am usually quite a peaceful member. Only a very few things here got me startled, and in most cases this was, when I felt that a moderator was using or abusing his privileges (e.g by deleting whole threads due to a few aggressive posts, by insulting other persons individually or other forums in general, etc.) without the uttermost respect for the members, their contributions and for other human beings or other forums in general.

I have no problems with democracy at all, not even with its "Ultimate" incarnation, the Newsgroups. Of course there are rules on the Newsgroups as well, but they are not "dictated" by a few, but formed by the community of the readers/writers. There is no use for a gun (in form of a magic "edit-" or "delete-" or "ban-" button) there, but for some eloquency and some understanding of Group-dynamics. There is no immediate punishment - like being banned - for a violation of rules, but there is some form of punishment by a loss of reputation and/or by being ignored. But of course I see RW's point, for participating there requires different communicatiion skills than in a moderated forum where one - or a few - can be "in charge" of things. Democracy does not frighten me in any way, absolutism does...

I am not aiming for any privilegues or power on this forum, nor am I playing ANY games here (not even "passive agressive little political" ones...). But I will also not tire to point out that IMO the forum-community as a total represents the value of this forum. And an opinionated, educated and generally mature community this is. And I would wish for the management to acknowledge this...

----
P.S.: If paying the bills and maintaining the bandwith is a problem, I am quite confident we could start some fund raising amonst the members to help the WM with it.

----
RangerDave, do you think you could come up with anotherone of your bonmots? This thread could use some of your efforts aimed at easing tension...

DGoeij

08-13-2002, 04:35 PM

So we are not going to have a Council of Nine because Walter and Readwryt cannot get along?
Could we stick to the subject? As far as I can see now, the WM would like to create a Council of Nine. It still sounds like a great idea.
Maybe we could start a new thread, without the bickering, to discuss it openly with all the members. On the moment, I do not think anyone is willing to post here.

ReadWryt

08-13-2002, 08:04 PM

Members must not violate the rules of this forum, some moderators - evidently - may do so as they see fit. "Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi", as the old romans used to call that. Hence I am not going to analyze RW's post or share my view about his personality, for I might violate rules with that.
(e.g by deleting whole threads due to a few aggressive posts, by insulting other persons individually or other forums in general, etc.)

Will you make up my mind, because I'm not quite getting how you are refraining from comment...

If you have a problem with me, write to the Webmaster and tell him what rule I have broken. I have no idea how many different ways I can state this without making direct reference to the entomologies of the individual words that comprise the sentiment. The "few aggressive posts" were peppered throughout the thread and at that time the only way to remove the individual posts would have taken a great deal of work, time and effort...as was explained at the time of that event. Comments made by me about other persons were made about people who were not members of this forum, in particular about someone who runs another forum and saw fit to start entire THREADS speaking pajoratively about me...and it took my strong statement of displeasure about the fact that people like yourself who were bagging on me for a few posts were acting hypocritically by saying NOTHING to the other person to have you finally post over there and say anything.

I have no problems with democracy at all, not even with its "Ultimate" incarnation, the Newsgroups. Of course there are rules on the Newsgroups as well, but they are not "dictated" by a few, but formed by the community of the readers/writers. There is no use for a gun (in form of a magic "edit-" or "delete-" or "ban-" button) there, but for some eloquency and some understanding of Group-dynamics. There is no immediate punishment - like being banned - for a violation of rules, but there is some form of punishment by a loss of reputation and/or by being ignored. But of course I see RW's point, for participating there requires different communicatiion skills than in a moderated forum where one - or a few - can be "in charge" of things. Democracy does not frighten me in any way, absolutism does...

Then what is keeping you here if not some altruistic desire to dismantle that which the Webmaster has built? There is a whole Usenet out there which you have no problems with, where anybody can say anything they like and fill the thing with all the Spam they care to. Nobody has nailed your feet to the floor, and I hate to break this to you but very few even noticed when you stormed off in a spat the last time. It's really simple...if you don't like what this place is or have no constructive critisism but only want to sit about posting statement after statement that undermines the authority of the Moderators and complains about how this place is not a Democracy, which it never claimed to be in the first place, then maybe there are places that are more apt to appeal to you then this one...

DGoeij

08-13-2002, 08:21 PM

Ignoring the simple question by a member who wishes to stay on subject and then starting to whine about events from the past really show great personalities. It also really helps in solving the grudge you two seem to be having.
Could you two discuss this with the WM, somewhere else?

Oh forget it altogether. Applause for the mature way of handling your disagreements. And many thanks for wasting my time and energy with it too. Do I need to put the word sarcasm in, in case you hardheads miss the point again?

Rangerdave

08-13-2002, 08:41 PM

Hey DGoeij,

Don't you just love political debates. Maybe we should fill a kiddie-pool with oatmeal and chocolate syrup and let them "wrassle" to see who is best.

Actually I'm quite enjoying this little contest. You can tell so much about a person's true nature when they are steamed. And as of yet, neither party has broken the rules of either the forum or nature.

I can't wait for the halftime show. I hear they got Elvis.
RD

DGoeij

08-13-2002, 08:44 PM

Will he perform: "A Little Less Conversation", perhaps?

Grond

08-14-2002, 05:52 PM

I felt the need to post here if for no other reason than to get subscribed to the thread. I certainly want to have a ring side seat for the mud wrestling contest.

The Council of 9 is a great idea. It will give the general populace more of a feeling of ownership of the forum; however, the responsibilities of the Council need to be extremely clear. There needs to be an absolute line drawn between the duties of the Council and the duties of the Moderator. Moderator's have enough problems just in managing the forum without having to worry about 9 other people looking over their shoulder (that is WM's job.) So... let's be sure and have the duties of this Council understood by all. I feel their job should be more of a member interface and have less to do with moderator issues. The exception to this might be in membership discipline. Perhaps the Council could provide some much needed help in appropriate punishments for offenders.

RW, I must disagree with your sour milk analogy. I use sour milk all the time when I bake :o (yes I bake) so I very rarely throw it out... I simply find other uses for it. When milk sours is also a matter of opinion. Sour milk to you may be only slightly spoiled milk to me. That is one of the reasons I think it important that more than one person be involved in forum discipline... but that's just my opinion.

"I am the Eggman,
I am the Eggman,
I am the Walrus.... koo koo kachoo!!"

aragil

08-14-2002, 09:36 PM

I like your analogy Grond. It puts me in mind of tLotR where one of the Hobbits (or was it Gandalf?) says that Lobelia had a look on her face which could curdle fresh milk.

Gilraen

09-01-2002, 09:33 PM

There needs to be an absolute line drawn between the duties of the Council and the duties of the Moderator. Moderator's have enough problems just in managing the forum without having to worry about 9 other people looking over their shoulder (that is WM's job.) So... let's be sure and have the duties of this Council understood by all. I feel their job should be more of a member interface and have less to do with moderator issues. The exception to this might be in membership discipline. Perhaps the Council could provide some much needed help in appropriate punishments for offenders.

for what it's worth, i think grond is right. as i've already mentioned in another thread somewhere i'm not entirely sure why the C9 idea surfaced :confused: .

has ttf been having member interface problems??? i have noticed that the character of ttf has changed quite a bit. to be honest i haven't really liked it but i thought it was just a result of a different type of member. with different interests.

i think that it's a bit harsh that the moderators are in conclave over this thing. i think that there would be less bad feeling and confusion if general members were at least able to view the moderators' discussion without the ability to post.

i know that this forum is not a democracy, one of the moderators pointed this out ages ago. it's not that we dont appreciate the effort that goes into moderating or that the intent is always good. it's just that most of us became members because something about this forum appealed to us. of course a forum is a dynamic thing but it stands to reason that members will feel strongly about its direction.

Ancalagon

09-01-2002, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Gilraen
i think that it's a bit harsh that the moderators are in conclave over this thing. i think that there would be less bad feeling and confusion if general members were at least able to view the moderators' discussion without the ability to post.

Personally I dont feel that this would benefit the membership as many of the questions debated by the Moderators relate to the more mundane, general tasks we manage. However, it is also necessary for moderators to discuss openly (away from the forum) issues surrounding certains members, attitudes, posts, threads or behaviour. Sorry, but the idea of an 'open door' when it comes to moderator discussions is a non-starter.

With reference to issues surrounding the 'memebers-interface', I can say that there are rarely problems worth any concern. However, there have been issues and we have tried to learn from these and move forward. I take it as you have posted in the other thread relating to this subject, you would have read all the comments made regarding the Webmasters original ideas. If so, then you will understand that the desire to have a C9 Council is to give a mode of ownership to the members.

it's just that most of us became members because something about this forum appealed to us. of course a forum is a dynamic thing but it stands to reason that members will feel strongly about its direction.

I think you pretty much answer the question as to why the C9 is being considered. There are various roles the C9 could have within the forum, which will be defined at a later stage. However, it will always revert back to the matter of members having more ownership of the forum through the C9. Surely the fact this is even being considered is more democratic than processes in any other similar forum?

Gothmog

09-02-2002, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by Ancalagon

Personally I dont feel that this would benefit the membership as many of the questions debated by the Moderators relate to the more mundane, general tasks we manage. However, it is also necessary for moderators to discuss openly (away from the forum) issues surrounding certains members, attitudes, posts, threads or behaviour. Sorry, but the idea of an 'open door' when it comes to moderator discussions is a non-starter.

I have to agree with Ancalagon on this. I cannot see that being able to view the Moderators discusions would be of any benifit to the rest of the membership. It is far better that the Mods be allowed to have privacy to talk about any issues that are brought to their attention without worrying that the discusion itself could be used to cause trouble on the site.

I think that the Mods function best if the most difficult part of their work is not over-seen by those they have to decide about. In any club or work place such things are talked about in private, then if needed in private to the person concerned. Either way, the rest of the membership should not be in a position to view such things.

Kat

09-02-2002, 03:13 AM

I agree completely. In all the time I have been loitering around the forum, I have never had the desire to be in on the inner workings of the mods. Members of this forum are here to discuss Tolkein with fellow enthusiasts, not to demand greater rights for members, or emancipation from the restraints of forum governance. The mods here assist the WM in providing us with an amicable, userfriendly, respectful place in which we congregate to discuss Tolkein.

Im sure the average member has little desire in participating in some kind of coup, as described in an earlier post, in which a Co9, (which in my understanding was to be established merely as a collective representation of members to discuss member matters and maybe advise mods of the outcomes of such discussions), is going to somehow usurp power from the mods, and WM, and participate in some kind of closed door, clandestine discussions and issue directives instead of advice to the TTF Powers That Be. IMHO, these PTB's do an excellent, and at times thankless, job in which they need discretion to perform efficiently. After all this, I think I would vote NO for a Co9, (if an election were to be held) if its going to cause so much drama.

Just my two cents....

Gilraen

09-05-2002, 08:24 PM

you're all right. i have been very confused. i thought that the mods had a separate 'discussion section' for this particular topic. it hadn't occurred to me how ridiculous the idea would be. thanks to ancalagon and grond (on another thread) i now see the error of my ways. :)

Tyaronumen

09-06-2002, 12:12 AM

Hey -- no offense intended to any or all, etc. -- but what a silly discussion!

The mods are trying to do a good job. The posters are trying to have interesting discussions on Tolkien.

Mods should surpress any neo-fascist anti-1st Amendment tendencies, and posters should surpress any neo-anarchist, uber-libertarian notions.

Neither one is realistic. If the mods are too heavy-handed, obviously no one will bother to stick around for very long. If the posters as a group are too much of a pain in the ass, this forum will become a liability to the people who take the time from their lives to run it, and I could foresee them deciding that it is not worth the effort.

Obviously, we are all human beings here. Some of the human beings here have "power" over the other human beings here. Obviously, the end result of 99.9% of human beings having power is some sort of abuse, intended or not, along the way.

The trick is to realize that this is not real life. You (the reader of this message :D) are not earning a wage by posting to these boards, nor by moderating them. You are not beholden to read the messages here, nor to respond to them. The posters and moderators of this board can only effect your life as much as *YOU* allow them to mentally effect you.

So, so what if the mods occasionally (or often) "abuse" their power as they see fit? It's their show, they're running it, and they get to call the shots, even if we're all participants in the drama as it unfolds.

But this is still not real life -- so the mods/posters (depending on your viewpoint :D) aren't going to fire you, or take away your house, or steal your old lady/man, or otherwise wreck havok upon you. IMHO, the logical extrapolation of this truth is that this is not a big deal.

The "C9" concept is one that I do not favor. Having experienced added layers of political representation/leadership/etc. on several forums, MUSHes, etc., I can tell you now that the more political overhead you have, the more political infighting, and B.S. that you end up with... I honestly can't see the "C9" being anything other than a badge of honor for those who are involved.

If you mods are concerned about what membership feels about certain things, why not just pick the board members that you feel are lucid and objective and ask their opinions...? Too slanted, one might say? Well, no more slanted than a C9 -- it just depends on which direction you want to slant in, how much, why, etc.

In the end, it's all irrelevant to me. Forums do not operate well under the auspices of democracy, and it would be a shame to see this board degenerate into the same sort of ridiculous political in-fighting that has eliminated the fun and interest elsewhere.

If the moderators on this board get too irritating to tolerate, I will stop posting here and go somewhere else to discuss tolkien...

However, as long as the board is still being moderated by moderators who will gladly allow me to post and discuss the main topic of these boards -- Tolkien -- along with many other issues, I will continue to post and be glad that there is a good place on the net for Tolkien discussion....

All that political **** should be left at the door -- by the mods and by the posters as well. But in lieu of that extreme pipe dream, "can't we all just get along...?"