Boot out the old and bring in new blood?

[Nayak]

I think the correct way of explaining democracy in BR would be -

5 wolves (admin) and 2 sheep (members) voting on what to eat for lunch.

[Sanku]

Democracy and equality have no meaning in this private forum that is visible to the public.

Well then thats the nub of the matter isn't it. Usually one reads the forum guidelines and decides to go with that. Some folks only find much later after being rapped on the knuckles or banned that joke A is jolly good show when coming from poster X but if you (Y) do it you can go stew your head in whatever. Usually the damage is already done to the spirit of the forum even if the person Y making the post is banned later or whatever.

Social hierarchies are fine -- but as far as I understand in any civil society or club; private or otherwise -- one has to maintain a certain behavior standard which are common to all. IMVHO that is not being done here by some folks who have "older handles".

A lot of concern has been expressed here on the lack of civil behavior and name calling; perhaps if a distinguished member X was immediately rebuked rather than being let on a free for all spree for the longest time before others started responding in kind the problem. would have never happened. The rot always starts from the top and if the people at the highest levels (in terms of club seniority) are seen as indulging in a certain kind of behavior and getting away with it; its only a matter of time that the game will be joined by others.

At that point of time worrying about forum quality would be a pointless exercise in my opinion since the die would already have been cast as to the nature of interaction.

Thesearch for truth and meaningful discussion will be hampered if there is a feeling that the statements are not being judged on their merit but on who makes them -- IMVVHO and all the standard disclaimers.

[enqyoobOLD]

(Never mind. 1TBD is a powerful motivator of the "never mind" key.) Then again, this "Ignore" feature is really great.

This post was made by xxxxxxx who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post if u have a hole in ur head.

[HariC]

[


I was keen not to link that blog on the nuke thread because of a reason that I have posted on the nuke thread.
.

Thanks for explaining why my post was deleted - i didnt check that thread and thought i never got an explanation. however i saw there was one now.

But you have to admit his blog is total entertainment at the amount of bile they have on BRF. as fun as reading some of the paki discussion boards.

[Johann]

Hello to all!

I'm sorry to say that I've drifted away from the forum over the last year, but even sorrier to see that a few others have also seem to have done the same.

No one can please every one - anyone who tries will end up disappointing almost everybody. That's just the way things are.

As others have pointed out BRF (and I realise defining that is part of the problem) must decide what its purpose is.

There are three basic 'tendencies' among those who post here - ideologues, geeks and wonks. Many people of course have more than one tendency. Popular demand meant that space had to be ceded to fight ideological wars - but those wars threaten to swamp the room for wonkish and geeky discussions - where technology and/or policy analysis, rather than ideological wars predominate.

If BRF can not, or will not chose, then it must support different kinds of environments *simultaneously*; A less moderated, perhaps often more ideologically and personally charged 'popular' forum, and another deeper, content-oriented forum with a different set of rules.

I do think that the best way to keep the second forum productive is to keep membership to those who can demonstrate that they are more interested in contributing to the discussion on *the issues* than asserting their personalities, or playing to the gallery. There are more than enough people on the forum who can do that, so initial membership wouldnt be a problem.

How would this forum avoid becoming too stuffy and complacent? By always making it clear that new people are *always* welcome to post - but the first post by a guest would have to be reviewed by admins before it appeared on the thread. It wouldnt have to be brilliant nor would it have to conform to consensus - it would just have to indicate that the person was engaged with the substance of the discussion, and was willing to abide by the general code of conduct. After a suitable period of probation, full posting rights would be granted. This kind of space *will* generate discussions that will lead to material for SRR/BRM type efforts.

Splitting the forums will mean that we dont have to lose contributors who also have strong ideological views, or cant always be civil. They can get dirty in the sandbox so long as they generally stay polite and on target in the club.

BRF must resolve the identity crisis, either by chosing, or finding better ways to operate on different levels. If its does not paralysis will lead to atrophy and severe morbidity. BR itself will do fine no matter what.