BR Forum Feedback

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 02 Oct 2013 22:34

Been on this forum when I came across is soon after/around Kargil. Used to read 'armyinkashmir' and other sites for news and had high BP being surrounded by those who felt bhaichara was needed even then and were committed AID/ASHA folks. It was a great balm reading BR/BRF. But was a lurker for years and that is the mode on many threads still as I learn quite a bit. The main diff I see in discourse is a much stronger and emphatic 'dharma'/religion discussion. So much that the moderate view is being pushed to the side. Let it stay in the current GDF and normalize.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 02 Oct 2013 22:39

deleted

KJo · Post by **KJo** » 02 Oct 2013 22:48

-self deleted-

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 02 Oct 2013 22:54

Please stop turning this thread into the Nukkad thread.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 02 Oct 2013 22:58

Suraj wrote:That used to be how discussions here were, at one time long ago. It was supported by a very active moderation exercise to enforce it. We are not going to go through with the open up GDF and replicate the HICAF fracas all over again.

but that was during the days when religion and politics were explicitly banned from discussions. Now that we allow it, what is the point in hiding it under burkha. imo, either you allow open discussion of religion and politics (within forum decorum, accepted standards of language etc), or you don't.

I have my settings as 'always log in' while visiting brf, and for a long while i did not even know gdf was under burkha

For example, would we see threads like 'Whats the best expansion of MMS ? Maha murkh singh, Moun man singh, etc' or 'What cup size do you like best - 36B, 36C, 36D, 36F' ? Would users look at the current state of discourse and seriously feel that there's sufficient self moderation within the forum for such a policy to work ?

it does not need to be free for all. there can be a graduated membership program where noobs are not allowed to start new threads in certain forums.

From what I see, based on interaction of like minded people in India - a few of them tried once to register and they just moved on to other places. They read links I fwd, but thats it. By design or not, the fact is brf is not welcoming for noobs.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Oct 2013 23:02

Ok, maybe I'm being daft here, but pulling GDF out of burkha would only mean that the lurkers would be able to see it. The number of people who can post there would remain the same, which is anyone who has an account. So how does that lead to increased moderation problems?

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 02 Oct 2013 23:08

Somebody above suggested 100 post limit for new (public email) posters. I feel that is too low. I would think only after they become Oldies (2000 posts) without any warnings should that email be allowed out of GDF. If they get a warning, the post count goes to 0. That is like a UG degree and then onto MS (posting privileges in all forums) and Ph.D. (moderator or SRR editorial board).
As long as mocking is done without malice or ad hominem - eg. IBTL - that seems to be OK.

(edited out incorrect attribution)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Oct 2013 23:20

I will take Shiv ji seriously if he first publicly apologizes for his role in the Arun_S fracas and gets him back through his personal efforts.

Till then it is all 100 mice and haj story to me I am afraid.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 02 Oct 2013 23:22

but that was during the days when religion and politics were explicitly banned from discussions. Now that we allow it, what is the point in hiding it under burkha.

That is not the case. The whole HICAF episode says otherwise. The simple fact is religion and politics cannot be moderated effectively unless the posters moderate themselves.

Just look at all the posts here, as a subcontext - people cannot even be bothered to see that this is a forum feedback thread, and just post away as if it is nukkad. Why should we bother with 'graduated memberships' and assorted other rules ? (nearly) all of those who sidetracked this thread above have >1000 posts. Where's the self moderation ? Everyone has all manner of complicated 'solutions' to various concerns, without any suggestions as to how to improve forum discourse among themselves.

By design or not, the fact is brf is not welcoming for noobs.

It is by design. This is a feedback thread and refers not just to feedback from users but also from moderators, so I'll say this - forum strictures evolved over time based on feedback from the user base's behavior. When a generally self-moderated ethos exists, more freedoms will also be provided, including the ability to more freely start threads.

As it stands, the current task of moderation is almost entirely upto the moderators. There's not much of the self-moderation that once existed. The solution isn't merely to add more moderators, but for users to moderate themselves as well. Moderators don't create rules for our own fun. They're developed to serve as the lowest cost set of guidelines that enable us to maintain a sense of calm on the forums. They'll be relaxed or removed when the conditions demonstrate that they can be removed.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2013 23:24

matrimc wrote:Somebody above suggested (Karan M) 100 post limit for new (public email) posters. I feel that is too low. I would think only after they become Oldies (2000 posts) without any warnings should that email be allowed out of GDF. If they get a warning, the post count goes to 0. That is like a UG degree and then onto MS (posting privileges in all forums) and Ph.D. (moderator or SRR editorial board).
As long as mocking is done without malice or ad hominem - eg. IBTL - that seems to be OK.

Mere bhai/mon friend, me no suggest this idea. Somebody else did so..
Not to disparage your point, just correcting attribution.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 02 Oct 2013 23:55

matrimc wrote:Somebody above suggested (Karan M) 100 post limit for new (public email) posters. I feel that is too low. I would think only after they become Oldies (2000 posts) without any warnings should that email be allowed out of GDF. If they get a warning, the post count goes to 0. That is like a UG degree and then onto MS (posting privileges in all forums) and Ph.D. (moderator or SRR editorial board).
As long as mocking is done without malice or ad hominem - eg. IBTL - that seems to be OK.

A while ago I suggested a graded-contributor system

0-1200 posts: Trainee- cannot start threads, cannot post opinions. Just data collectors and link pushers? Will not get warnings or bans.
1200-2000 posts: Member - can post opinions, data and links. But cannot start threads. Can get warnings and bans.
2000-6000 posts: BRFite - can post opinions, start threads. Will get warnings and bans as applicable
6000-10000 posts: BRF Oldie - cannot start threads. Will not get warnings or bans.

If anyone gets banned (after 3 warnings that do not expire) or achieves 10000 posts, they can rejoin after 1/2 months. But with a different handle. And will go thru same life as above.

This will ensure that people do not attach perceptions/opinions about handlers and posters will get to restart a new life with new interests.

After all User Handles are not an indicator of the attitude of individuals in real world.

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Oct 2013 23:57

I think we do not need a complex framework like constitution of India to complicate the matters i.e. good on paper but hard to implement/enforce.

See even Namo says less governance is good governance imho holds good for forum moderation too.

Garooda · Post by **Garooda** » 02 Oct 2013 23:57

negi wrote:It's gonna be fun; thoko taali.

naarayana...naarayana

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Oct 2013 23:58

^ Did I say something wrong ? That's what Sidhu paaji says on TV (it means clap your hands).

Garooda · Post by **Garooda** » 03 Oct 2013 00:04

negi wrote:I think we do not need a complex framework like constitution of India to complicate the matters i.e. good on paper but hard to implement/enforce.
See even Namo says less governance is good governance imho holds good for forum moderation too.

You read my mind

I was just going to type something along that line. Too many political parties and opinions (oldies and mods in this case) and thus too much hangama and indecisiveness

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 03 Oct 2013 01:24

One feedback about Good Posts thread. Can it be made public? That will give a glimpse into good posts in GDF (along with others, of course). If need be, one can have "good posts" staging thread(s) where it has to get an absolute majority (66%) of all the members before it can go public or into the right public forum/thread.

Would like to put Bade's name for moderation and a combo all-or-nothing {brihaspati,Theo Fidel,shuaryaT}.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 03 Oct 2013 02:18

I am pro restricting membership of forum. trolls are rampant everywhere. This paid email thing filters many trolls out. BRF is repository of knowledge and information. It should be kept so.

GDF is more essential to maintain the "sekoolar" image of forum after B.Raman's criticism. Furthermore many political opinions expressed in GDF are expressed because one is sure that google chacha will not dip his fingers there. If one has to make GDF irrelevant, one only has to ban all political, religious, historical, dharmik discussions on BRF. the topics left (and members) will be sekoolar onlee thus making GDF redundant.

i may be criticized as elitist, or "brahminical" for stating my opinion. But I view this forum as a school and I would like if only serious students or gurus enter the premises to post.

Number of threads in GDF can be decreased. Apart from political threads, and both nukkads and food and health like threads where members bond personally with each other, other threads can be either transferred to Strat forum or economy forum or military forum - threads like epic-discussion, history, deracination, MKG, JLN, Maratha-Sikh-rajput history should be moved to publicly visible forums so that person searching on google can view them.

But I agree with current membership restraint policy of BRF. Have seen so many fora being ruined by trolls. And anyone who has internet connection, has an ID provided by ISP. May be the registration form of BRF should have guidelines about what to do, what not to do to find that ISP provided ID which can be used for registration.

Also, I find no issues with mods. they, more often than not, are much restrained and not trigger-happy.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 03 Oct 2013 03:19

Atri is right. Usenet almost got ruined because of trolling. But still there is useful info in usenet especially various hierarchies that under the sci or comp roots. But usenet clients - especially Gnus in emacs - are also very sophisticated in setting filters etc. Plus the threading structure is different. There one can simply ignore a whole bunch of dialogs very quickly (by subject). The way things are here at BRF is a combination of tech used, history, and of course posters (whose behavior influences the mods).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Oct 2013 04:01

I thought usenet got screwed because of illegal binary distribution of apps. btw, they have unmoderated groups.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 03 Oct 2013 04:04

SaiK, I am going to continue on "Linux, IT, Opensource" thread.

Abhijit · Post by **Abhijit** » 03 Oct 2013 04:30

FWIW, except for a few raucous highly political threads (such as NaMo etc.) a large number of topics in the current GDF do not make sense to be kept under the hijab. There is this beautiful thread by Abhishek Sharma ji translating Shri Narendra Kohli's absolutely riveting Mahabharat. Why should it be under Hijab? Similarly Physics, cricket, sanskrit etc. too many to mention here.
One suggestion would be to have a HiCAF forum sans politics that consists of threads that are moved from GDF to that forum, only by mods. So maybe combine the tech and eco forum with judiciously transferred threads from GDf.
I would love to invite many of my friends and relatives to at least read the Mahabharat thread but can't do it due to the email restrictions.
jmtp.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Oct 2013 05:09

matrimc wrote:SaiK, I am going to continue on "Linux, IT, Opensource" thread.

Thanks.. this is how people should ask stupid questions, and get threads energized!

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 03 Oct 2013 06:10

One final feedback point from me - archives are good to point people to back for info for SRR or to say that some line of thinking has already been beaten to death before. I have a couple of posts I saved - one from Shiv avare and another from sanjaykumar ji which I will post in the good posts thread soon.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Oct 2013 08:40

nachiket wrote:Ok, maybe I'm being daft here, but pulling GDF out of burkha would only mean that the lurkers would be able to see it. The number of people who can post there would remain the same, which is anyone who has an account. So how does that lead to increased moderation problems?

Valid point nachiket.

This is how I see the "evolution" of BRF after the GDF frum became popular.

In the earliest days BRF was a dedicated military related forum - and the number of Indians on the internet was relatively low back then (1997 to 2002 period). Many people (and that includes me) were interested only in the military and strategic aspects. GDF offered no attraction.

But clearly as membership to BRF grew demands for a separate forum grew and the idea of a hidden forum actually came up relatively recently - after I stopped being admin IIRC. In fact if I had continued as admin GDF may not have survived or might not have been created due to my objections. And Sanku would not have been unbanned.

(So much for unbiased forum administration). A heavily moderated forum such as this always consists of people whom admins tolerate and lacks those people who piss off admins. Only threads that admins tolerate can survive. It can never be democratic or inclusive. Sucking up to admins is always a good policy and I had my share of being sucked up to.

But that is history. GDF exists and is very popular. As a result many BRF members post their contributions on GDF which is invisible to non member lurkers, and the pressure or time to make valuable contributions to the visible military and other forums is eaten up by GDF. Lurkers simply see relatively inactive military and strat forums with no new threads or discussions. Newbies do not really go back and read archives. So for a non member lurker the visible forums on BRF are dull and inactive. Even people who are asked to come on to BRF are put off by the double whammy of inactive forums and convoluted membership policy.

Making GDF visible would at least indicate that there is something going on in BRF and will IMO serve as an attractor for those non-member lurkers who are interested in the topics discussed there.

More members means more people with views, interests and skills. Less moderation means less pissing off good contributors. Good contributors often have huge egos and see admin decisions as petty and brainless. Admins find it difficult to handle big egos who are contributors without pissing off one or the other. Ultimately it has to be coexistence.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Oct 2013 08:46

Atri wrote:
GDF is more essential to maintain the "sekoolar" image of forum after B.Raman's criticism. Furthermore many political opinions expressed in GDF are expressed because one is sure that google chacha will not dip his fingers there.

Atri are you saying that GDF is not secular? I don't know but may I point out that selective membership and selective tolerance of threads and hiding of inconvenient threads in a secret forum that is not visible to others has now become BRFs defining feature.

If GDF is biased in a particular way today, that bias will be killed by allowing in people who think differently. To that extent selective membership and a secret forum are an effort to maintain a cocoon of comfort for some selected people. This is what BRF is today. A cocoon of comfort for a select group. Naturally no one would want to change that, but I am saying that stasis and stagnation is the only future for a small private forum with restricted membership and invisible discussions that people are embarrassed or ashamed to share.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Oct 2013 08:59

matrimc wrote:Plus the threading structure is different. There one can simply ignore a whole bunch of dialogs very quickly (by subject).

Thread proliferation serves the same purpose. Irrelevant threads or those that are uninteresting can be ignored. Searching for valuable news related to LCA flight testing is more difficult in a 100 page thread rather than a thread entitled "Engine relight test on LCA successful" among a dozen LCA related threads.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 03 Oct 2013 09:11

Since this is the Forum Feedback thread and since my feedback is that the Forum is better off with Shiv ji than without, I for one welcome his recent posts and hope to see his continued participation.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 03 Oct 2013 10:08

shiv wrote:
matrimc wrote:Plus the threading structure is different. There one can simply ignore a whole bunch of dialogs very quickly (by subject).
Thread proliferation serves the same purpose. Irrelevant threads or those that are uninteresting can be ignored. Searching for valuable news related to LCA flight testing is more difficult in a 100 page thread rather than a thread entitled "Engine relight test on LCA successful" among a dozen LCA related threads.

Shiv ji, fair enough. Here is hoping that you will open a thread

to discuss all this stuff.

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Oct 2013 11:03

Since Hakim saab has come back and started an interesting line of discussion...

Atri wrote:GDF is more essential to maintain the "sekoolar" image of forum after B.Raman's criticism. Furthermore many political opinions expressed in GDF are expressed because one is sure that google chacha will not dip his fingers there. If one has to make GDF irrelevant, one only has to ban all political, religious, historical, dharmik discussions on BRF. the topics left (and members) will be sekoolar onlee thus making GDF redundant.

Atri ji,

I find the bolded part of your comment interesting and I think relevant to what many active posters on BRF think about the forum. Are you saying religious, historical and even dharmik discussions that take place in the burkha forum are by their vary nature not "sekoolar" (I use your spelling deliberately here)?

In my view that raises a few pertinent questions:

1) If these discussions are indeed not "sekoolar" in the BRF definition of the term, are the members afraid to indulge in them in open? Do they not have the confidence to say what they want to say within hearing of Google chacha? It may be just me, but I would say that sounds like hypocrisy of the highest order and indicates a singular lack of confidence in one's POV.

2) The other point - and this one I find disturbing - is the apparent inference that such discussion cannot be held if one is "sekoolar" in one's views regarding what is the normal definition of what it means to be secular (as opposed to BRF's terminology). And I find that interesting because to me discussion on subjects like history of India and some of the other threads are if nothing else a celebration of the idea of being Indian and being a part of the Indic traditions of this country. Why in God's name should that be in burkha, are we not confident of our own culture?

The problem as I see it is that, more and more, posters with only one particular POV are active. As a result anyone with any other POV is - maybe unintentionally - ganged up against and the person either sticks around and becomes a punch bag absorbing insults and ad hominem attacks or he or she simply stops posting. One could even call this a purification process. And that eventually takes discussions into a evolutionary dead-end.

I'm sorry but BRF, especially in the burkha forum and even in threads in the Strat forum which deal with things like Secularism and Politics are increasingly becoming giant echo chambers without any plurality of thought or POV. This IMO is a recipe to bring down the standard of discussion.

Be as it may, I realise that BRF is a private effort and if the owners, moderators and other posters don't feel the way I do, then I have no quarrel. But then I, like many others, are also free to make our own choices.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Oct 2013 13:50

I would like to debunk two myths here

a) myth : GDF was kept hidden because the content therein is communal/political etc
fact : GDF was created as a watering hole for members where they had more latitude to discuss what they wanted, within BR's rules of course.
it was kept login only access to assuage concerns of e-profiling and leak of personal info.
now many members may have decided to discuss politics and religion but that is not the raison d'etre of GDF.

b) myth : BRF moderators want only a particular POV to thrive on the forum
fact : BRF mods are completely unbiased regarding viewpoints on the forum, their personal choices notwithstanding. while I accept that some viewpoints have more followers on BRF, there are still people who hold contrarian POVs and are not afraid to state it time and again. I would even admit to the ganging up that happens when someone goes against majority POV. it is certainly not by any design of the mods. there has been some under-moderation but that will only improve in the coming days.
at the end of the day, if someone wants a particular POV to thrive he has to do the grunt work of supporting it with facts and logic, merely wishing mods to intervene won't help.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 03 Oct 2013 14:49

Rahul M wrote:I would like to debunk two myths here

a) myth : GDF was kept hidden because the content therein is communal/political etc
fact : GDF was created as a watering hole for members where they had more latitude to discuss what they wanted, within BR's rules of course.
it was kept login only access to assuage concerns of e-profiling and leak of personal info.
now many members may have decided to discuss politics and religion but that is not the raison d'etre of GDF.

precisely..

Personal stuff which people share on nukkad, l&m nukkad and similar other dhagas need to be protected. This is a community and there is bound to be evolution of friendships and personal attachments with fellow posters. All this "yaari-dosti" too should be kept login protected.

Amit ji,

You are correct, I deliberately used BRF lingo when I said "sekoolar". The discussions on religious memes and associated political memes are of course not "Sekoolar" - they are meant to tear the burkha of sekoolarijm or what is known as "pseudo secularism" in popular discourse. And it is not about fearing, saar.. Most of us "kommunaals" who are active on political dhagas are also active on twitter, FB, Blogs etc and say same things there. Bhy do ju mis-samajh? I feel, some ideas need incubation and GDF provides that. once matured, it is transferred to open domain. It is about providing that incubation.

Please spell out openly what you mean - You mean to say "Hindutva-vadi" people when you refer to "certain point of view", no? Why shy away? Yes, you are right this is the case in current times. But this is all over Internet. The phenomenon of "internet Hindu" has hit entire cyber-space. This is multiplied by the fact that TsuNAMO has already hit the cyberspace of India. And it will only go on increasing for few years now. This is not just BRF, but elsewhere as well. And it is not individual centric. It is the entire ideology and alternative world-view and history, economics, sociology, military-ethics - basically all aspects of life which we believe are rooted in India's sanskriti - which has been long suppressed and is finding a mascot in form on NaMo to rally and make their presence felt.

At least on BRF members with anti-Hindutva opinion and their view-points are not opposed with Maa-behen gaalis and are rebutted in civil language. In case of usage of uncivil language, mods have been prompt in acting upon the members involved. Full credit to mods for maintaining the credibility of the forum and keeping the things civil. Look at what happens to people on Twitter and FB, when inarticulate but angry internet hindus respond. Opposition on BRF is tackled in most civil manner in entire cyber-space dealing with issues regarding socio-politico-economic scenarios of India and surroundings.

Shiv ji,

I do not understand what "secular" means, Shiv ji.. it is too confusing and I have deleted that word from my lexicon. I do know however what "Sekoolaar" means and I also know what "Dhaarmik" means. All forums on BRF and their moderation has been Dharmik, in my experience. I too have been following BRF for more than 10 years now (was rarely posting with different ID before I changed to current one and increased the posting post 26/11). Everything is bound to change.

I do not think people with Anti-Hintuva ideology are hounded or trolled out here on BRF. You have to acknowledge the wave that exists all over internet. So far, only good people belonging to that wave have entered BRF. I am not saying all good people are here, there are many more elsewhere. But what I do know is that the trashing trolls which rampage on twitter etc, are absent here (at least they are silent, because they are humbled with discussions and their range here).

If you are fighting a tsunami wave, you are bound to be washed away. OR you have to go deeper within your shell. The bias against sekoolarism exists in current space-times in real world and is increasing. BRF is not an island, people here are aam-abduls only who get affected by things they experience in real life. What you are asking for is an unbiased discussion between those for and against tsunami - only way it can be achieved is further cocooning oneself. If you open the gates, you can hardly expect bias being fixed in favor of "sekoolarism", it will be exact opposite - only with much little grace and stature.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Oct 2013 15:10

Rahul M wrote:I would like to debunk two myths here

a) myth : GDF was kept hidden because the content therein is communal/political etc
fact : GDF was created as a watering hole for members where they had more latitude to discuss what they wanted, within BR's rules of course.
it was kept login only access to assuage concerns of e-profiling and leak of personal info.
now many members may have decided to discuss politics and religion but that is not the raison d'etre of GDF.

b) myth : BRF moderators want only a particular POV to thrive on the forum
fact : BRF mods are completely unbiased regarding viewpoints on the forum, their personal choices notwithstanding. while I accept that some viewpoints have more followers on BRF, there are still people who hold contrarian POVs and are not afraid to state it time and again. I would even admit to the ganging up that happens when someone goes against majority POV. it is certainly not by any design of the mods. there has been some under-moderation but that will only improve in the coming days.
at the end of the day, if someone wants a particular POV to thrive he has to do the grunt work of supporting it with facts and logic, merely wishing mods to intervene won't help.

I do not dispute this post Rahul, but want to point out is that reality ends up being what this post does not cover

1.GDF was started for some purpose as you say, but the discussion is now political. Political discussions are not allowed in the open forums of BRF. Therefore GDF has become the default forum for political discussions. BRF's mandate is now "Discuss military and strategy in the open, but discuss politics in secret" What is left out is that the secret political discussions are reflected in attitudes in the military and strat forum where ganging up occurs against some political viewpoints in favour of others that people feel cannot be discussed out in the open with smart excuses and fancy names. While BRFites have the right to be and do as they want the whole thing appears like a big fraud to me. No one is fooled by the secret discussions because their effects show out in the other forums. The emperor is naked. Everyone needlessly got upset with the late B Raman whose viewpoints are clearly not popular. The reasons for his unpopularity are political and discussed in secret on GDF but are quite evident in the military and strat thread. The secrets spill out seamlessly into the open. Why maintain this laughable hypocrisy? Forumites can do that but have the admins not noticed this transparent anomaly?

2. Admins are human and have likes and dislikes. If one admin has a very strong objection to something it will not get implemented. Therefore all admin decisions are a compromise of what no admin is strongly opposed to implementing. So while admins are fair, they are fair only within the restricted area that they all agree upon. Furthermore, if a policy decision is taken by BR admins it is never stated as having had the agreement of 3 admins and dissent of two. It is implemented as if all admins agree about everything. That of course is not true, and it boils down to the fact that anything that has strong opposition by any ONE admin will not get implemented. BRF admins, apart from founder-admins like Rakesh and Jagan were all taken from among forum members and I believe that admins must take a fair poll of what forum members feel.

If admins only allow in a select set from a large number of people who could be allowed in and keep the numbers and threads down it is easier to implement a dictatorial policy.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Oct 2013 15:20

Atri wrote: I do not think people with Anti-Hintuva ideology are hounded or trolled out here on BRF. You have to acknowledge the wave that exists all over internet. So far, only good people belonging to that wave have entered BRF.

So why are admins or forumites scared of opening GDF to the public? Clearly Rahul's contention that "profiling" may be done should not apply to political discussions. Everything that is felt and discussed are clearly seen in the other forums.

On the question of "good people belonging to that wave" I would like to offer two quibbles
1. The majority of people feel that way so what is GDF hiding? Its all over the media and internet. Is there a far that "not so good people from the wave" may enter unless the forum is hidden and membership restricted?
2. A policy of referrals for membership can easily fill up with members of one political hue. People with a different viewpoint can have a good laugh because all the "originality" of any political views on BRF are not seen by anyone. Not even bots because BRf does not have the guts to show the political view of its members who just happen to have mainly one viewpoint. Is this a member sponsored hurdle or an admin supported hurdle?

BRF itself appears sekoolar. That is because those who do not like being sekoolar are cowering behind burqa, unable to say things out in the open except by loud objections, noise and snide comments in the open forums. Why are non sekoolar people bent on maintaining BRF's sekoolarity? Is it because the secret unsekoolar discussion space will get damaged if BRF's sekoolarity is lost? But if the wave is all over what is being hidden?

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 03 Oct 2013 15:26

shiv wrote:
Atri wrote: I do not think people with Anti-Hintuva ideology are hounded or trolled out here on BRF. You have to acknowledge the wave that exists all over internet. So far, only good people belonging to that wave have entered BRF.
So why are admins or forumites scared of opening GDF to the public? Clearly Rahul's contention that "profiling" may be done should not apply to political discussions. Everything that is felt and discussed are clearly seen in the other forums.

On the question of "good people belonging to that wave" I would like to offer two quibbles
1. The majority of people feel that way so what is GDF hiding? Its all over the media and internet.
2. A policy of referrals for membership can easily fill up with members of one political hue. People with a different viewpoint can have a good laugh because all the "originality" of any political views on BRF are not seen by anyone. Not even bots because BRf does not have the guts to show the political view of its members who just happen to have mainly one viewpoint. Is this a member sponsored hurdle or an admin supported hurdle?

Some ideas need incubation and GDF provides that. once matured, it is transferred to open domain. It is about providing that incubation. that is my understanding of GDF being login protected. many ideas which are propagated on social and mainstream media are originated here. Most of them are in their raw form when in GDF which are then refined and published elsewhere. I view GDF as an temporary incubation facility for such dhagas and ideas..

Regarding other yaari-dosti dhagas, I have already said why they should remain login protected.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 03 Oct 2013 15:31

Sanku wrote:I will take Shiv ji seriously if he first publicly apologizes for his role in the Arun_S fracas and gets him back through his personal efforts.

Till then it is all 100 mice and haj story to me I am afraid.

Just addiction to BRF; that special taste n aroma which BRF has was missing in those GFE and DFI sites. Also the special status plus he has on BRF, he couldn't get there.

So he comes back here as a great sudharak of BRF instead of accepting that he couldn't live without BRF. The addiction is too much.

Plus the same old genocidal-obliterator psyche. The way he went after Arun_S on chidambram issue. The same tendancy now going after Ramana. I haven't seen anyone else complaining about him. In all the decisions mods are together, there isn't a crack like there was at the time of enqyoob-ray_c vs. others

And let's say the email policy is opened up and lots of posters from all over the world flock BRF, then what happens if Santanam kind of reveletion comes up again. And a foreign poster from france or germany calls chidambaram a traitor? And it would be happening in all the thousand threads, Artillery thread, M777 artillery thread, fh 77 artillery thread.......

This is great when you are a mod with full powers you behave like a control freak making rule after rule. Not even allowing the links to be pasted here from certain sites. And now suddenly this 180 degree turn. No this is not sincere.

So its clear that

1.) Shiv wants to come back to BRF as DFI and Guns for everyone sites aren't as good as BRF, but without accepting that thus saving his ego.

2.) Personal vengeance against an individual.

At least his relative enqyoob or even Brig. Ray C had the grace that they stuck to there decision to leave but this guy is pathetic.

Kya girgit jaisa rang badla hai:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 20#p499611

shiv wrote:Ultimately a forum is a kind of club in which there are people who have interacted for years and others who come in later. Some of those who come in later are able to read and sense the atmosphere and join. Not everyone manages that.

It would be a mistake to assume that everyone is equal from day one. Definitely not. Some people are definitely more equal than others. A persistent inability to join the club rather than to dispute existing social hierarchies is a problem.

Admins are completely selfish in this regard. They will act in whatever way that is need to maintain th forum and keep the most positive and loyal contributors. The idea that admins are neutral umpires are wrong and that is the first thing that one comes to grips with on BRF. And admins are selected only on the basis of their loyalty and contribution to BR. This puts admins in line for flak - but no admin on BR puts personal popularity ahead of a commitment to keep the site and forum running as they have done for over a decade. Democracy and equality have no meaning in this private forum that is visible to the public.

negi · Post by **negi** » 03 Oct 2013 15:33

A middle path is very much possible; i.e. take the Physics (Math one is in tech fora), Music, photography, personal health and food and wine threads out of the GDF into a open bucket like other 3 major foras. Nukkad , L&M nukkad , astrology and paranormal stuff are the only topics which one might think are better left in the GDF. Personally again I don't care.

member_23455 · Post by **member_23455** » 03 Oct 2013 16:12

Rahul M wrote: b) myth : BRF moderators want only a particular POV to thrive on the forum
fact : BRF mods are completely unbiased regarding viewpoints on the forum, their personal choices notwithstanding. while I accept that some viewpoints have more followers on BRF, there are still people who hold contrarian POVs and are not afraid to state it time and again. I would even admit to the ganging up that happens when someone goes against majority POV. it is certainly not by any design of the mods. there has been some under-moderation but that will only improve in the coming days.
at the end of the day, if someone wants a particular POV to thrive he has to do the grunt work of supporting it with facts and logic, merely wishing mods to intervene won't help.

FWIW, as one of those with often contrarian POVs, one is not really looking for protection from the mods against "ganging up" by the majority. It's an occupational hazard of being a contrarian, and as required one can walk away from an argument or choose to fight fire with fire.

If anything the under-resourced mods can do a lot to improve the quality of BR by monitoring basic indiscipline - people discussing the same topic in multiple threads, Dragging entire threads off-topic without the courtesy of even an OT, one line off-the-cuff posts etc.

The "facts and logic" battle on the other hand in IMO is a very tough task for mods to referee. We have people quoting from in-depth research and doctrinal studies being countered by folks brandishing Wikipedia, and some weapon system brochure -you cannot fight that kind of arrogance of ignorance!

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Oct 2013 16:37

Atri wrote:Please spell out openly what you mean - You mean to say "Hindutva-vadi" people when you refer to "certain point of view", no? Why shy away? Yes, you are right this is the case in current times. But this is all over Internet. The phenomenon of "internet Hindu" has hit entire cyber-space. This is multiplied by the fact that TsuNAMO has already hit the cyberspace of India. And it will only go on increasing for few years now. This is not just BRF, but elsewhere as well. And it is not individual centric. It is the entire ideology and alternative world-view and history, economics, sociology, military-ethics - basically all aspects of life which we believe are rooted in India's sanskriti - which has been long suppressed and is finding a mascot in form on NaMo to rally and make their presence felt.

At least on BRF members with anti-Hindutva opinion and their view-points are not opposed with Maa-behen gaalis and are rebutted in civil language. In case of usage of uncivil language, mods have been prompt in acting upon the members involved. Full credit to mods for maintaining the credibility of the forum and keeping the things civil. Look at what happens to people on Twitter and FB, when inarticulate but angry internet hindus respond. Opposition on BRF is tackled in most civil manner in entire cyber-space dealing with issues regarding socio-politico-economic scenarios of India and surroundings.

Atri ji,

Your response is precisely what I meant when I said that there is a degree of defensiveness, which makes many posters comfortable with the burkha forum.

You talk about Hindutvadi, can you define what Hindutvadi means? I’m personally proud to be Indian and Hindu, one reason why I remain Indian despite almost two decades residing abroad for work-related reasons. But am I a Hindutvadi? If your definition of a Hindutvadi is one who loves the Indic traditions yes I’m one.

But it also saddens me that there are no Indian Muslim posters contributing to this forum nowadays and increasingly many Indian posters (who are not Muslims) are hesitant to identify themselves as non-Hindu when posting.

Since we are at it let give you an anecdote. In the Indian Economy dhaga, about a year or so ago we had a very lively discussion on the Indian fascination for gold. Now I hold the view that buying gold jewelry, as form of “investment” is a very bad idea – bad both for the families who buy and collectively for the country as it feeds the insatiable appetite for gold. Now note I make a very clear distinction between gold bullion as an investment option as opposed to gold jewelry. I’m not going to take any names but one of the worthies on this forum who also thinks of secular as “sekoolar” made an ad hominine attack calling me anti-Hindu because I “disrespect the Hindu tradition of buying gold jewelry”. I’ve got no intention of even going into the absurdity of this allegation here but I just want to show an example of dogma masquerading as discussion. You don't need to give Ma-Behen gaalis in order to sound utterly crass and ridiculous.

The other point you make about pseudo-secular? Who gets to decide who is secular or pseudo-secular or not secular at all? Sadly in the case of BRF today it’s the mob that does that. Now consider me. I am proud of my Hindu heritage. But if someone were to ask me to define my identity I would say: I’m first of all an Indian, then a Bengali and finally a Hindu. Now tell me does that make me secular or pseudo-secular? Or does it make me anti-Hindu?

Frankly I’m tired of the excuses trotted out by the apologists of the most peaceful religion in the world whose Prophet constantly needs a PUBH. However, I don’t think trying to be more like them with a level of intolerance that is alien to the Indic ethos is the answer.

I’ve been an active member on this board since 2007 and was a lurker for many years before that. In my almost decade long association with this forum I’ve always felt that a majority of the posters shared the same view.

Now I’m not too sure. It is my personal opinion that there has a paradigm shift on BRF. Now again I know others may dispute this and it could also be that the majority wants this. As I wrote in my previous post I have no issues on the direction that BRF takes or has taken. I can and will only evaluate what I want to do.

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Oct 2013 16:42

RajitO wrote:... you cannot fight that kind of arrogance of ignorance!

This has always been present. What's new IMHO is the arrogance of intolerance.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 03 Oct 2013 17:26

amit wrote:Atri ji,

Your response is precisely what I meant when I said that there is a degree of defensiveness, which makes many posters comfortable with the burkha forum.

Amit ji,

I was clarifying only.. I do not think I am being defensive. You may attribute defensiveness to my response, but that is your appraisal.

Paradigm shift has happened in psyche of Indians in general, forget BRF - this is what I am trying to say. It is natural that BRF too will mirror those societal changes. The expression of this shift can be dharmik or adharmik. If it is unjust and adharmik, you should report it to Mod and it is dharma of the mod to dispense prompt justice and settle the grievance.

I think BRF has bright future ahead.