BR Forum Feedback

[amit]

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.

I'm sure the forum has a bright future. But it's a small matter that the future may not rest comfortably with many old members.

But you say that this the majority thinking in India. If that's the case why do you need the burkha forum? You can't argue for both.

[Garooda]

IMO lets charge a nominal yearly 'subscription'/'club membership' fee

[Rahul M]

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!

re : bolded part
we are undermanned enough that even that much has not been possible at times, leading to unwanted consequences.

IMO lets charge a nominal yearly 'subscription'/'club membership' fee

the site owners are quite against taking money from members.

[Garooda]

IMO lets charge a nominal yearly 'subscription'/'club membership' fee

the site owners are quite against taking money from members.

Nominal enough to helpout with administrative cost of the site itself and leftover funds can be donated to the armed forces charity of their likings on behalf of BR.

[Rahul M]

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.

sorry, I have to vehemently disagree with that. only a fraction (I would guess less than 10%) of GDF threads deal with politics.
of the 38 threads in page 1, only 3 deal with politics and 2 are tangentially related to politics (on MKG and Ambedkar)

Political discussions are not allowed in the open forums of BRF.

that is a twisted way of looking at facts. the correct way is politics is not allowed in the more specialized fora of mil, strat and econ/tech. it is allowed in the lounge bar kind of forum which happens to be hidden due to other considerations. just FYI, most internet fora have a similar watering hole sub-forum for the same reasons.

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.

forget BR, people's views and interactions in real life are reflected in their forum postings. there is nothing we can (or should) do to prevent it, as long as the bounds established in BRF are not breached.

this is true whether the posts are in GDF or mil or strat.
if there's a feeling that GDF discussions are not put in the open due to reasons other than privacy, those are feelings not shared by the mods.

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?

sorry shiv ji, there is no anomaly or hypocrisy involved. you are imagining some reason which is not there.

FWIW, BRaman was wrong in his characterization of BR and he admitted that later in the same article with a rejoinder. I wonder why people always ignore that particular point.

[darshhan]

I have been visiting the DFI and IFG as guest regularly as guest since Shiv ji came up with his suggestions. Contrary to the perception of many posters here, I did not find that discussions were going out of control (due to free email policy). Neither I observed much trolling there as many BRFites have implied. If anything posters on those forums are as respectful and civil as anyplace else in the virtual world. Plus the crowd is definitely more cosmopolitan. I found Americans, Chinese and pakis apart from Indians. The views were much more diverse. There is less paranoia. Those who support Namo do it openly and not behind some curtain. Similar for those who are unhappy with the pseudo seculars and compromised media.The impact they are making is much more. In contrast BRFites feel extremely shy like brand new dulhans/Brides while discussing these issues. Hence the need for secret forum.

Sure BRF still has many great posters including Shiv ji himself and I have gained lot of knowledge from them, but eventually you have to keep up with time.

Now I am fine if BRF declares that its objective is to be just an Old Boys club. But then make it clear. Why pretend to be a premier Military and Strategy forum at all?

[darshhan]

Shiv ji, One question though. Why do you want Ramana ji removed? I can understand your point that new mods need to be there for fresher perspective. But let me tell you Ramana ji is one of the more open minded moderators. Not that others are bad. But they are much more rigid. If Ramana ji goes then the forum will probably become more closed . Avg Open mind Quotient will go down.

[Garooda]

Shiv ji, One question though. Why do you want Ramana ji removed? I can understand your point that new mods need to be there for fresher perspective. But let me tell you Ramana ji is one of the more open minded moderators. Not that others are bad. But they are much more rigid. If Ramana ji goes then the forum will probably become more closed . Avg Open mind Quotient will go down.

Agree completely. Seems to me there are 'Game Of Thrones' taking place on BRF.

[Atri]

Shiv ji, One question though. Why do you want Ramana ji removed? I can understand your point that new mods need to be there for fresher perspective. But let me tell you Ramana ji is one of the more open minded moderators. Not that others are bad. But they are much more rigid. If Ramana ji goes then the forum will probably become more closed . Avg Open mind Quotient will go down.

+1

[Karan M]

GDF being login only is a good thing. Contrary to Amitjis claims, those on BR need to protect their freedom of speech and opinions from the thekedaars of political opinion, who happen to include leaders whom he has supported and admired, as it stood before. They happen to persecute people on social media and everywhere using fake claims and frivolous cases. This is how honest debate has been stifled in India. The more credible the platform, the more the attack.

Further, If the center right wing paradigm shift bothers folks, they have their choice to create their center left environment elsewhere. Ultimately BRF reflects what it's posters feel, albeit moderated for civility. Artificially strait jacketing them into some image of what a handful of posters want is pointless. Accept it for what it is and move on. All forums, nations, societies evolve. If folks think they deserve better, surely there are other places on the net to debate.

[Garooda]

Artificially strait jacketing them into some image of what a handful of posters want is pointless. Accept it for what it is and move on. All forums, nations, societies evolve. If folks think they deserve better, surely there are other places on the net to debate.

+100

Its amazing how the desipana doesn't go away even online. Free opinions and suggestions are welcome but definitely they should not be forced similar to netaas, babus, MSM and ofcourse religious zealots. Many folks think they are somehow superior and better then others on BRF. Sorta like the stupid senior and junior crap existing in colleges

[Suraj]

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.

And for what it is worth, the instigator of that sordid attack was warned, and subsequently banned, for his actions. He just got back from his ban recently. Depending on the timeline you pick, he's been banned between one and two times, with all the accumulated warnings in the meantime.

There's no dearth of contrarian opinion on BR. It's everywhere, from the Arjun thread to the Nukkad. The tone of the forum will reflect the noisiest and most persistent membership base. You want to post a contrarian view of your own ? You're more than welcome. But if you expect that others should be quietened so that you can do so, that's not possible. You want it to go in a different direction ? Post here extensively and take it in that direction.

The fact that discourse is driven in a particular direction is a reflection of the loudest group. And the fact that they can do so is a testament to us moderators NOT stepping in wantonly to mould opinion in some chosen direction. That is upto members to do. If you view yourself as an EnMo type, you'll always face up to the more louder fringe. It's upto you to just ignore the noise, post as you do, report posts you see as unnecessarily provocative.

The only way to mould opinion on BRF is to post here, at length. We can do nothing about members complaining on the feedback thread, and we don't care about those railing on the blogspots of the world. These complaints here are irrelevant, because we see a cacophony of posts here, some of which claim moderators step in too much, while others (like you) claim we don't step in enough. There's clearly no consensus on most of the trial balloons floated recently.

Further, we cannot police opinion in the manner you desire. If there's no concerned push towards a centrist line of thought from a base of posters, there will not be one imposed by moderators in its place. This thread is filled with a litany of moderators do this/do that . I'll re-emphasize the fact that a lot of desired changes are driven by the posters themselves, not by us. That includes how centrist the opinion base of this forum is or will be, as well as something as mundane as the ability to create threads freely.

[Lilo]

Suraj ji,
Appreciate your thoughts above.

The only way to mould opinion on BRF is to post here,

How to get the lurkers or noobs posting more ?
Strat forum needs this especially. Heck strat and IR issues are the most noob friendly as it doesnt require much domain specific knowledge unlike Mil forum. An event of interest happens somewhere it can technically find its place in Strat and IR forum.
In this regard A common thread to post on uncategorized strat issues will be noob friendly. And any stuff which piques any members interest here can be further x-posted into other categorized threads by that member.
New members have to start posting- For starters even if its just posting news links or news quotes even without an accompanying comment. After a while opinions will eventually come out below the quoted news item and further on, on the issues and news items commented by others.This was my experience.

[Suraj]

How to get the lurkers or noobs posting more ?

That is upto the posters themselves, not us. There's no rule banning anyone from posting immediately after joining, creating threads within reason, or posting in the manner anyone else here does.

[Prem Kumar]

A few naya-paisas from my side. Since we are talking about how to keep BRF relevant and increase its sphere of influence.

a) Structure of BRF
b) Content of BRF
c) Guidelines for entry & behavior in BRF
d) Interfacing with Social Media

Shiv highlighted a,b & c above. I'd like to add (d)

Structure
a) I was reading BR news articles for years before I realized that BRF even exists. It needs to be made much more prominent and inviting. We can discuss several ideas here. But BR website feedback thread is a dead zone. Nothing I have posted there has elicited a response. Its also difficult to make suggestions for improvement without understanding the underlying forum/website software and its limitations

Are BRF webmasters & Admins open to suggestions for improving the website? If so, I can share some ideas

b) GDF: I understand the need for this. But lets talk about specific threads & whether they need to be hidden. Take the Narendra Modi thread, the fastest moving one on BRF today. Why is this hidden under GDF? A lot of the ideas discussed there deserve wide dissemination, which is not going to happen if you keep it tucked away in a corner. There is hardly anything inflammatory in there that isnt discussed in other mainstream sites. Its a HUGE opportunity that BRF is missing in shaping views during a key election season

Content
a) Rather than SRR, it will make sense to host a place for blog posts. It may be difficult to canvass a lot of people for articles for a magazine. Instead if you ask posters to consolidate their posts into a blog type entry and get it published, there is a much higher chance of getting things published
b) Why not link individual member's personal blogs into a Blog section and display it prominently on the BRF main page?
c) We badly need a Wiki site on our own. So much insight gets washed down the river of posts. There is no "summation" of insights into some sticky form

Guidelines for entry & behavior in BRF
Not much comment from my side. Moderation is mostly fair. However, mods are extremely averse to feedback about their actions, which I feel is unhealthy.

Interfacing with Social Media
Here is where we are missing the bus big time. BRF is a great repository of ideas. But it goes waste because we are not making our impact felt in the SM space. There is some cross posting here & there. But there is no concerted effort to shape SM discussions. Several posters have Twitter & FB accounts. But the effort is dispersed. Other than personal relationships, I dont know if many here know the Twitter handles of key posters. Granted - we dont want it to be too public but there are ways to share and work with each other in the SM space. We should also review what we can do on the forum software side - can we cross-post/cross-link between Twitter/Disqus/FB handles and BRF handles? For instance: if SSridhar starts a Twitter handle, I will follow him in a jiffy & so will many others. He can become an opinion shaper in a very short time. We can have a "Tweet this" button in the forum software, so that the stuff that gets posted here is spread widely (guess what it will do to BRF's Alexa ranking). We need to seriously brainstorm about ideas here. On this front, I feel BRF's popularity & influence can skyrocket. Or we can allow ourselves to behave like old codgers and punch way under our weight category

[amit]

And for what it is worth, the instigator of that sordid attack was warned, and subsequently banned, for his actions. He just got back from his ban recently. Depending on the timeline you pick, he's been banned between one and two times, with all the accumulated warnings in the meantime.

Au contraire Suraj, the poster was not banned for using terms like dhimmi, EJ etc during that particular discussion in May of last year. Maybe for some other infringement, I wouldn't know.

But you perhaps didn't get the point that I was making to Atri ji when I bought up that incident. In the past we've had lively discussions/disputes etc over various topics, like say when the Nuclear deal was signed for example. But nobody at that time started to question an opponent's commitment to India, or whether the person was/is a dhimmi, anti-Hindu, EJ, take your pick.

In comparison to the emotions unleashed in the famous nuclear debate the one on gold was just a walk in the park and yet...

My whole point is that almost every contrarian POV, which goes against the majority opinion is attacked in this manner in almost all threads outside the military dhaga. After sometime one (at least I do) get the impression that pissing in the wind is a waste of time. I personally don't give a damn if someone calls me a dhimmi, anti-Hindu, pseudo-secular or questions my moral compass but it does get boring after a while.

Further, we cannot police opinion in the manner you desire.

Sorry you got me wrong here. I'm not one of those who thinks there should be greater policing by Mods. And that's why I said that if the majority on BRF, including the mods as well as owners want the forum to go a certain way, then that's fine by me.

[amit]

GDF being login only is a good thing. Contrary to Amitjis claims, those on BR need to protect their freedom of speech and opinions from the thekedaars of political opinion, who happen to include leaders whom he has supported and admired, as it stood before. They happen to persecute people on social media and everywhere using fake claims and frivolous cases. This is how honest debate has been stifled in India. The more credible the platform, the more the attack.

Karan ji,

If you think a login requirement can protect you and others from such determined thekedaars then good luck to you!

Incidentally that infamous Facebook incident where two girls were picked up by the police happened after their comments on Bal Thackeray's funeral. I point this out to give context to your point: "... who happen to include leaders whom he has supported and admired, as it stood before..."

For record, I can think of a lot of adjectives when I think of Thackeray but admired wouldn't be one of them.

Further, If the center right wing paradigm shift bothers folks, they have their choice to create their center left environment elsewhere.

My point is not about centre right or left, its about intolerance of opposing POVs and name calling.

[Suraj]

Au contraire Suraj, the poster was not banned for using terms like dhimmi, EJ etc during that particular discussion in May of last year. Maybe for some other infringement, I wouldn't know.

The point remains that he was warned multiple times and then banned, within the past 6 months, for calling people names or making arguments personal. If he wasn't banned specifically for the post(s) you have in mind, that is another matter. There's no record of any post reports by you in the thread, on a cursory examination. Moderators are not omniscient, nor are we in a position to crack down on every single utterance of whatever you find disagreeable. That's going to result in a mob shrieking 'thought policing!'

My whole point is that almost every contrarian POV, which goes against the majority opinion is attacked in this manner in almost all threads outside the military dhaga. After sometime one (at least I do) get the impression that pissing in the wind is a waste of time. I personally don't give a damn if someone calls me a dhimmi, anti-Hindu, pseudo-secular or questions my moral compass but it does get boring after a while.

Like I said, the most visible voice of the forum will be the one that's most persistent. You seem to be under the impression that these members are cosseted and encouraged. They are not. The specific poster you are obliquely referring to has 3 bans to his name within the past couple of years, is flirting with another as we speak, and his current accumulated warnings will require all the fingers of your hand and nearly half your toes to count.

But the fact is, they're persistent. They return from bans and continue to post. They don't take offence at the repeated actions against them. They do not sit outside and harrumph about how the forum is changing. They are the agents of the direction the forum goes in. I give them credit for that. Not someone who walks away, and then complains.

As a moderator I appreciate the fact that a non-majoritarian opinion gets substantial opposition, but there are plenty of examples of posters who remain here and retain a position against the mainstream. The qualification to be one is to have a thick skin, make your point without taking it personally or being personal, and let the others shoot themselves in the foot trying to bait you. Theo_Fidel is a good example of someone who follows this.

Sorry you got me wrong here. I'm not one of those who thinks there should be greater policing by Mods. And that's why I said that if the majority on BRF, including the mods as well as owners want the forum to go a certain way, then that's fine by me.

Speak for yourself. You really don't know the personal opinion of the moderator team members, something I am reasonably privy to behind scenes. Our personal beliefs are irrelevant. We don't moderate on that basis. The direction of this forum isn't the direction we lead it in. It's the direction the most persistent group of members here lead it in. The only way its going to go in a direction you like is with your own participation.

[shiv]

How to get the lurkers or noobs posting more ?

That is upto the posters themselves, not us. There's no rule banning anyone from posting immediately after joining, creating threads within reason, or posting in the manner anyone else here does.

Suraj I never look at GDF and haven't seen it at all for 4 months when I did not log in. I wil restrict my comments to what I see on Mil and Strat.

I note that you and Archan are the most active admins. My compliments and sympathies in this regard. Being an active admin is the best way to becoming unpopular among a whole lot of people, Those admins who stay away from the dog's work of forum administration should really be allowed to ease themselves out. It is both a privilege and a dog's job. No point having the privilege if you shirk the dog's job.

But I digress.

Your post above is "right" to the extent that you have your hands full. But the task of taking up new subjects and starting new threads for discussion is being "thrown back at the Abduls" by you as "not admin work". Admins cannot be allowed to simply shirk the responsibilioty of beaing forum leaders. May I throw the job at the admins who do little or no policing and remain eternally popular as a result?

Admins who are not busy doing dirty work must "lead" the forum by posting links and topics as new threads. Why do I say this?

1. Membership is already restricted to a few who come through a convoluted route
2. The aura of BR and the threat of IB4TLs has put off noobs for years - so many people admit to having joined after lurking for years makes people wary of being shamed

For these reasons Admins who are not courting unpopularity by appearing "mild" have, in my view, a duty to start threads of events, and news. In fact admins who do that job can stop this bias or impression of bias by posting links or articles as new threads reflecting different shades of opinion rather than the accusations BRF has faced of being biased. We need vision - preferably unbiased vision to allow all sides to be heard and leadership. Not unending chowkidargiri. This requires balls and willingness to be unpopular among those overly loud people who might want to fill the forum with a particular viewpoint while beating down others.

I don't see admins leading the way. BR Admins are now a bunch of simple chowkidars and only a few are doing the job - like I said I see mainly you and Archan doing that.

Other admins who cannot start and help maintain healthy and vibrant discussions and are reluctant to do the dirty policing that you and Archan have done need to look sharp and take BRF forwards rather than making policy decisions in the Admin forum which have done nothing for BRF. We need balanced forum leaders, not members with special privileges who can impose their biases via policy. And we do not need admins who look for popularity by not making hard decisions when they are needed.

Those who can neither lead discussions nor do dirty policing need to be thanked for their help and returned to the ranks of Abduls. There are some Admins whose posts do not appear on the visible forums for weeks or months on end - neither for killing trolls or balancing out biases nor for leading discussions. What are they doing as admins? Some of those guys are my friends. They will understand. BRF was started by people who were forum leaders by nature (they founded the forum and led all the discussions) and became admins with vision secondarily. We now have admins but no leaders. Perhaps it was easier back then - but a n admin who is neither policing nor actively leading discussions by starting threads and helping noobs find their voice needs to be welcomed back to Abdulspace. It's about time.

[Suraj]

Admins who are not busy doing dirty work must "lead" the forum by posting links and topics.

This is your personal opinion, not an immutable law as to how a forum should be run. I'm aware BRF used to be like this in the very distant past, when you, amongst others, used to lead this forum. There was a very good reason for that - BRF was establishing itself as a fledgling forum, and a handful of admins/thought leaders determined what could be posted or not.

For better or worse, a lot of things have changed during that time. Even forums themselves are somewhat of an anachronism in the age of social media. Likewise, how BRF is run has evolved with time. Even its dominant voice has changed, as people come and go.

Moderators don't drive the direction or lead as you would like. Some of us are domain experts in certain threads, but that's it. Ironically enough, I always thought moderating a forum is a thankless job, not even remotely a popularity contest, because someone or the other is upset with being warned, banned or advised to calm down. Different perspectives... really different ones.

[niran]

Suraj I never look at GDF and haven't seen it at all for 4 months when I did not log in.

@amit: see the need for a GDF saar? by June 2013 there are 127 cases pending in various courts in various part of India,
all of them either for unPC remarks or posts or visuals depicting Sonia Ghandhi, Rahul Ghandhi, Kapil Sibal and Digvijay Singh
most were made on facebook which is as open as it gets place, and some were on various forum where obviously GDF is not implemented, see saar, it is babu's nature if it is hidden let us say just by mere steps of logging in the babu will yawn and go on to other
interesting places let us say the latest page uploaded about savita bhabhi, why i say GDF will not interest a babu
the answer lies in a report to a senior babu regarding Bharat Rakshak Forum

the participants or members mostly middled aged engineers with family few sidetracked journalists, they are harmless lot, the moderators prohibit ***** so we are safe on that account.

so much so for the we are the elite group.

[Suraj]

Thought leaders by definition lead with their contributions, not with an administrative baton. Even the erstwhile moderator/leaders did not lead using the baton, but by being dominant contributors. There are several among the membership base who fit that role today. The problem here is, some don't like the fact that they are the thought leaders, and would rather it be led in other directions of their own preference.

Let me throw in a mental exercise - the mods magically become thought leaders overnight, and lead the forum in a completely different direction from what you wish. Would you still cheer that ?

I'll paraphrase what I've stated multiple times now: you want the forum to reflect your thought leadership ? Be that leader. Calling moderators names like chowkidar isn't really a constructive approach.

[shiv]

Admins who are not busy doing dirty work must "lead" the forum by posting links and topics.

This is your personal opinion, not an immutable law as to how a forum should be run. I'm aware BRF used to be like this in the very distant past, when you, amongst others, used to lead this forum. There was a very good reason for that - BRF was establishing itself as a fledgling forum, and a handful of admins/thought leaders determined what could be posted or not.

For better or worse, a lot of things have changed during that time. Even forums themselves are somewhat of an anachronism in the age of social media. Likewise, how BRF is run has evolved with time. Even its dominant voice has changed, as people come and go.

Moderators don't drive the direction or lead as you would like. Some of us are domain experts in certain threads, but that's it. Ironically enough, I always thought moderating a forum is a thankless job, not even remotely a popularity contest, because someone or the other is upset with being warned, banned or advised to calm down. Different perspectives... really different ones.

Forum moderation is thankless alright. Why do you think I got out? What about fellow admins whom you refer to as "we"? Ask yourself privately in your admin forum if they are all doing the same thankless task with the same regularity as everyone else. If they are not, wtf are the doing as admins? If you reamin admin and neither do policing, nor lead the forum and simply sit and govern policy it is a ridiculous situation.

"Domain expert" is one name for what I am getting at. The now decrepit military forum can do with three "domain experts", army, navy and air force all admins whose job is simply to start threads with news or comments. For the air force people like Austin or perhaps Indranil Roy come to mind. Keep them off the Abdul killing work. They can lead the forum.

[shiv]

Let me throw in a mental exercise - the mods magically become thought leaders overnight, and lead the forum in a completely different direction from what you wish. Would you still cheer that ?

I'll paraphrase what I've stated multiple times now: you want the forum to reflect your thought leadership ? Be that leader. Calling moderators names like chowkidar isn't really a constructive approach.

Sorry if you felt hurt but you have asked a rhetorical question about what might occur in the future if something that you are unwilling to implement today gets implemented by some magic. What I think does not matter. If the decrepit state of the open forums, especially the military forum and reputation of bias are set right I would be happy. I post views on what I believe might help the sorry state of affairs that BRF has reached.

Actually I am particularly concerned about the military forum. Because many of us have friends in the military they still look at me and ask if something or the other can go on BR. Given the proliferation of useful sites it should not be too long before interested military people, defence technologists and others are all directed to some other new site. But I am taking one last shot at BRF. I will undoubtedly have access to tech news and military views, books and articles. Even today there are lots of places where they can go - but I think BRF needs a chance. That chance is gradually drying up

When an active military person posts a titbit he is under some constraints. Those constraints can be protected in a forum that is sympathetic to his restrictions. BRf used to be that way. It is gone now. Not sure if it will get back but I'll be damned if I don't try - at least for the people who emailed me or spoke to me and asked.

A few months before I left I discovered that Pakdef sometimes had better or earlier info than BRF. If they are doing well so be it. Gradually bRF is being rendered irrelevant. That too is fine. It will survive as just another forum with its peculiarities. But given the loyal membership it has I believe it worth a try to get them staying on in a familiar place.

If I don't see what I hope to see it means that i don't see what I hope to see. That's about it. There are other extremely good sites for news and articles - with more activity and more contributors who are all fiercely loyal to what they have helped to achieve. BRf becoming a has been will not matter too much for anyone except during the transition period when disinterested people migrate out and settle elsewhere.

[Suraj]

The first page of the mil forum has - not counting feedback and announcement threads - 30 threads started by regular members and 7 by moderators. Each page has 40 threads, and there are 7 pages of threads = 280 threads, most of which were created by non-moderators, including multiple by those named explicitly. Ditto for the Strat forum, which has 9 pages = ~360 threads.

There's really no point in who creates threads, and there's no shortage of threads themselves. Forums today will always want for the kind of thought leaders of 10-15 years ago, simply because there are several other avenues and outlets of expression online besides a forum. People express themselves over 160 characters instead of 160 words, much less lines.

[rajanb]

Nice to see you back Shiv.
Whereas one appreciates the fantastic domain knowledge, I have found that we are dominantly in a

a)"we cannot do anything right moan mode".
b) Defence and politics are serious business, but a well placed (not BENIS) sense of humour can actually drive a point home and make it interesting.

The right to everyone's opinion is valued. As is mine.

[nachiket]

But the fact is, they're persistent. They return from bans and continue to post. They don't take offence at the repeated actions against them. They do not sit outside and harrumph about how the forum is changing. They are the agents of the direction the forum goes in. I give them credit for that. Not someone who walks away, and then complains.

I'm sorry Suraj, but if the said poster has been warned and banned so many times, he doesn't deserve to be on the forum. Obviously, he likes to wantonly flout the posting rules that his membership here is contingent upon. I don't see why you seem to sort of respect him. It is very difficult to argue with such posters beyond a point if you are one of those who like to stay away from warnings and bans and maintain a clean record.

FWIW, I remember the incident Amit is referring to. I once posted a somewhat similar viewpoint regarding the gold on that thread but then I got out of the discussion when I realized what direction the response was taking.

[negi]

I like Prem's point about interfacing with social media; I find myself contributing to discussions and debates on facebook on more frequent basis these days. There is no moderation issue there, anyone who has ability to see your wall can post and you get to hear different views than what I hear on forum. Obviously we need to network within ourselves in order to help the other with data points on the internet and some of the BRF memebers who are active on facebook are in my friend list.

[amit]

It is very difficult to argue with such posters beyond a point if you are one of those who like to stay away from warnings and bans and maintain a clean record.

Exactly the point I wanted to make. Thanks for posting this.

Different people have different thresholds. Suraj mentioned Theo and so I'll also take his example. He's one poster with whom I've been on opposite ends of the spectrum on various threads like the Nuke dhaga. Despite that I have immense respect for him and his depth of knowledge and his contribution to the Indian econ dhaga (again a place where I've held different POV on things like FDI in retail for example) and the China econ watch thread have been invaluable. I find it appalling when folks charge him of being and EJ and worse just because he holds a different POV. Now his nature is to shrug off such ad hominem attacks and keep on posting.

That is admirable in a way but not everyone has the fortitude displayed by Theo and I for one know that if someone or a group constantly keeps needling me then I would burst at some point of time. It happened to me with Sanku once and the net result was we both got banned. Since then I've decided to back off when ad hominen attacks start coming from all side. And sorry I don't like to report posts, what to do I'm like that onlee.

I suspect a lot of folks are like me rather than Theo. Which is why they realise that after a while it just becomes a pissing in the wind kind of exercise. It is easy to build a theoretical construct that you should persist till your POV is accepted. That's possible only in a rational non troll environment not in a place where the counter argument is that you are dhimmi, pesudo secular, anti Indian, anti-Hindu and your moral compass is awry.

Contrary to what folks may think I don't blame the Mods for this state of affairs, save perhaps for one. I guess it just reflects the direction in which BRF is going. As I'm saying repeatedly, it all boils down to taking a decision on what you want to do in such a situation.

[rohitvats]

Gentlemen,

My two cents to this debate triggered by good doctor’s post.

I think lots of issues are getting intertwined and the focus of the discussion veering away from pertinent matter to more inter-personal issues. The way I see it, there are some important issues which need to be addressed by the administrators and webmasters of BRF. Here are some points:

1. Quality of debate – As someone whose presence is restricted primarily to military matters, I speak from my experiences in these threads. It is no brainer that the quality of debate has gone drastically over last 4-5 years. And this has happened because people knowledgeable in technical and military matters are no longer participants on the forum. All one has to do is take a look at some of the threads in the archives and he will understand what I’m talking about. A good discussion is one which throws up a body of knowledge which can serve as a reference point - and this can only happen when you have (a) people knowledgeable in such matters (b) people willing to do research and come up with informed posts.

I have no idea why people who were knowledgeable in such matters have either moved on or post very intermittently. One reason can be to do with phase in one’s life when one outgrows such interests. Other could be disenchantment with forum for various reasons. If posters who’ve left BRF continue to post on other forums (knowledgeable forums with good debate), then it is a case of disenchantment with BRF. We really need to understand the reason for their migration and see if things can be corrected to attract those posters back.

Now, it would be natural for people to say that people come and people go and stasis cannot always be maintained. Nor is it desirable. Then, is it time to introduce steps to attract wider talent to BRF? Wider talent comprising of knowledgeable people as well posters willing to learn and add constructively to a debate.

2. Membership – As I said in last point, we need to attract more and wider talent. Talent which can add to the body of knowledge and also serious posters willing to do the heavy lifting of researching a topic and then posting on the forum. If the administrators are not comfortable with ‘free-email’ id policy than something more innovative may be trialed. Reference policy was one such measure – just as a thought, 5 x references may be allowed per poster. And the poster, who reference is given, is also made responsible for forum behavior of the people whose reference he/she has given. He should have the responsibility of monitoring their conduct (w/o admin rights) and also revoke reference in case of major indiscretion. The final decision can rest with administrators.

3. Moderation – The second category of posters who add value to a discussion are those who are willing to go beyond the obvious, do some research and post informed point-of-view. The situation we have now is that posters morph into key-board ninjas at drop of a hat and we have a slug-fest. Just because someone ‘feels’ a particular way about a topic does not mean it needs to be posted on BRF. Unless this ‘feeling’ has a well-researched data point behind it. The onus of researching a topic and posting something relevant to debate should be placed on the posters.

This calls for better and more active moderation.

Long story short – we need more members and wider participation and more active moderation with well-placed guidelines. What is required is to create an eco-system where informed discussions can take place. I understand that these two steps are likely to place more burden on the moderators but I guess more elaborate and clear-cut guidelines with zero-tolerance for indiscretion can help alleviate the issue.

And I’m not for going the DFI way where people open thread for everything under the sun. And for every single worthwhile post, there are 50X single line posts. Not to mention the same topic being discussed in multiple threads.

Finally, as someone who did come with-in hairs’ breadth of quitting BRF 2-3 times over last one year, I really hope we manage to create and retain an ecosystem where informed discussion can take place. There is simply no incentive for doing any research on a topic anymore – except for quenching my desire for understanding a topic. I come to BRF to have a dialogue and not simply post what I feel about something. I want to engage with people who can add to a topic (same or counter POV) and through it, my body of knowledge. I tried doing that by opening a blog to discuss China related military issues and with handful of contributors, managed to add more information than entire China related thread on BRF in recent times. A stimulating environment is what is required. Whines upon whines do not create such an environment.

And for God’s sake, please keep religion and politics out of Military discussion.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>There's no dearth of contrarian opinion on BR. It's everywhere, from the Arjun thread to the Nukkad. The tone of the forum will reflect the noisiest and most persistent membership base. You want to post a contrarian view of your own ? You're more than welcome. But if you expect that others should be quietened so that you can do so, that's not possible. You want it to go in a different direction ? Post here extensively and take it in that direction.

The fact that discourse is driven in a particular direction is a reflection of the loudest group. And the fact that they can do so is a testament to us moderators NOT stepping in wantonly to mould opinion in some chosen direction. That is upto members to do. If you view yourself as an EnMo type, you'll always face up to the more louder fringe. It's upto you to just ignore the noise, post as you do, report posts you see as unnecessarily provocative. <SNIP>

I strongly disagree to above point-of-view.

The point amit is making is not about 'quietening' a certain POV or moderators moving the discussion in certain direction - his point is about ensuring that a contrarian POV and opinion is not drowned out by personal attacks by majority camp. That the posters are not bullied. I have personally faced this situation when someone called me 'gunga-din' because I had a contrary POV to majority opinion on the thread. While the poster was warned/banned on my complaint, the fact remains that enough is said and done short of such grave provocations which stifles counter POV and those making counter POV. Name calling or referring to people as anti-Hindu or anti-this or anti-that is one such tactic.

Discussion on facts or informed thought-process cease to exist and majority tries to drown out the contrary POV simply based on lung power and name calling. It is YOUR duty as an admin to ensure that contrary POV is not drowned out through bullying tactics. And such tactics have become par for the course on non-military topics on BRF.

[ManuT]

A lot of the points have already been made by others and is looks like a rehash and a bit repetitive. Posting it before the weekend takes over.

Likes
1. Current Email policy. It is not much to ask for. NINJAs should work on putting their life in order rather than more solving global problems. BR should not contribute to unemployment. With a tighter email policy hopefully at least the person is paying bills/dues to society.

2. GDF. There should be a space for members only. Maybe BRF can be moved to a subscription based members so that one person does not share the cost of ownership and also those who want GDF to be private can post there. I feel there might be times when a question needs to be placed to a limited audience.

3. I like the fact that BRF is free of ads and people are not thanking each other for making a post and it has a worthwhile collection of news, views and timelines.

Dislikes
1. Re-activating PM. I am afraid enabling it just makes people ganging up against a person. It is not that it does not happen currently, but at least it is in the public domain. There is a liability in online bullying.

2. Personal attacks. They are kind of 'dehati budhiya' line of argument that only lower the level of debate and difficult to argue against. I mean, even in family people have different political affiliations and some have none but that does not mean one goes name calling every morning at tea.

3. Party politics and religion. I am sure Congress (I) and BJP have their web sites and some form of board. Some of the discussions can be directly discussed over there. BRF should NOT act as a megaphone for a political party or political candidate if it has to be able to do useful analysis. BRF if anything should be able to support the Durga Shaktis of the world.

Issues
1. How many times have someone from outside referred you to BRF as a resource for stuff? In the last 10 years there have been none from real life who has mentioned BRF in a discussion.

2. It has hardly any representation from Indian Muslims. Ever wonder why they do not post here anymore? Similarly where are women contributors, after all it is not possible for a bird to fly on one wing. I want to know what they think. Simply because they are not represented here, it would be problematic to assume that the views here are representative of opinion in India.

3. Also, I would not mind a few members from other countries. They can be suspended in case they attempt psych ops or under extraordinary circumstances but as long as they have the willingness to discuss they should be allowed. (This is a departure from a previous position I had on the matter)

Wish List
1. What is of interest to me after what BR-fites say (obviously that is the first part) but how many people are hold a particular view and also how much of it is based on the ground. These need to be tease out by posing questions of the issues on a regular basis so the shades of opinions can be determined by counts than through reams and reams of posts.

Once that takes shape maybe more lurkers will be encouraged to participate canceling out the noise in the opinions. People obviously will need to make arguments. Done on a regular basis an overall picture based on views of BRFites which can be matched with the outcome of future elections. It might show how much ahead or behind the curve BRF is and on a continual basis.

If nothing else, BR can push it out ranking these to the social media. (Like Transparence International, nothing stops is from bringing issues to fore, we see NOTA-neta has been accepted by SC and EC, right to recall AAP is discussing it, Pappi-japphi is heard on timesTV), but we need counts.

To have credibility the results must have some honesty from the participants and be generally audit-able. For this it is better to have registered email.

2. Also, folks should declare their their nationality or location so that no one has to be false flags. At least some cognitive dissonance might be more visible in making arguments.

3. Anyone who has not been banned permanently by mods should be welcome to return to the forum. Forum Admins need the discretion to run the place I guess but perhaps the same admin and cannot ban a person second time in a row and that it needs an additional admin to concur to ban.

[negi]

Rohit bhai I have heard this on forums many a times but I am puzzled how can anyone drown anyone's opinion unless his ability to post is hampered (this can only happen on a comments section of a blog/newspaper or a tv debate when you are not given opportunity to post/speak) ? It's not like if 10 people say something against a poster his ability to hit submit/post button gets disabled , so what is this drowning/stiffling talk about ?
Every time a big quarrel happens on BRF it happens between two parties so why cannot we trust them as mature adults and let it sort it out like boys do , let them have a go at each other. Most of the people about whom people here shed tears about went down in Admin fire (AlokN, Stan to name a few) and why ? Because they were not allowed to say what they wanted to , we all have ego issues personally I feel far more pissed at someone telling me to not to post on a certain topic than the guy who calls me a mofo for posting it. Yes people need to be prevented from hijacking a thread and that is why off-topic thread is there but I simply do not buy this strawman about certain voices getting stiffed here. Back in the day when Shiv was a mod he even created a thread Negi vs the rest when I had a different take on Kargil and almost everyone ganged up against me (actually it was me who went all out with AK ), but hey I never felt that my voice was stiffled.

There was an incident some time back when iirc Somnath was asked by an admin (Ramana ?) to reconsider his stance on certain issues; while as an admin if that was right thing to do is a topic for debate (personally I think it was inappropriate ) I still do not think that it amounted to stiffling someone's opinion for there was no action on ground i.e. poster was neither warned/banned . Stan's case on the other hand was a case of heavy handedness . We all are educated people and I think Admins need to give all of us ample space and trust our instincts as individuals taking part on an online forum a few bar room brawls are far better than heavy handed moderation where the threads are locked or a curfew is enforced on certain topics (remember the old religion dhaga ? ).

[member_23455]

<SNIP>There's no dearth of contrarian opinion on BR.

Fixed it for You.

At the risk of being overly simplistic, the fundamental "tonal" change in BRF--and it has happened in a creeping way-- is that a forum about Bharat Rakshaks, the Guardians of India, has transformed into Bharat Rakshak, where not the majority but at least 30-40% of posters see themselves as "the Bharat Rakshaks."

When you take yourself so seriously, your opinion becomes "fact", you come to the board for validation of your views, not knowledge or discussion, and critical thinking skills are substituted by pure raw emotion.

Obviously in the absence of depth, and sometimes not having nothing new to say at all, leads to repetition, dragging in political and religious biases, and if nothing else, ad hominem.

But where I am with the Mods is that I don't see them being able to influence quality of BRF. This realization has to dawn upon posters themselves, and sometimes the "superior, condescending" minority has to point it out.

The silver lining remains that as an information source BRF still represents the best of crowdsourcing.

[shiv]

2. It has hardly any representation from Indian Muslims. Ever wonder why they do not post here anymore?

This point is inextricably linked to the sorry state of the military forum where thinking/researching contributors are a rarity.

No matter what the original and enlightened view of the majority on BRF might be, the Indian military is "sekoolar" in outlook. That means if an order comes from the UPA to do or not do something the military will follow those orders.

Now maybe there are people who dislike the military's "sekoolarism" and would like to change it. Now if BRF is being used as a starting point to change the sekoolarism of the military there will be very little involvement of military personnel who are not only expected to be apolitical to earn a living, they have to be sekoolar if the civilian government demands it.

The utter degeneration of the military forum is linked to the "vision" and forward thinking of people who oppose sekoolarism who are constantly questioning the military's (poor?) judgement in supporting the sekoolars. Now maybe in a few years time BRF will lead the way and wash out sekoolarism from the armed forces and the entire country, although I am currently sceptical - given BRFs sinking popularity at least with regard to the military forum, and rigid outlook. But if we want to discuss military ops, tactics and get the involvement of people who are on the frontline or in cockpits - we have to maintain a facade of sekoolarism and not argue with it and lampoon armed forces people or their spokespeople who earn their daily bread by protecting sekoolarism if the civilian government demands that. Tomorrow if Modi changes all that the armed forces will change - but what Modi might do is being ably discussed in the secret forum I am told. It is another matter that Modi himself is probably too intelligent to interfere with military sekoolarism, but I digress yet again.

[nachiket]

^^I don't seem to recall such posts questioning the IA's "sekoolarism" in the Mil Forum much less calling for a change. Would it be possible for you to point to a couple of such posts? There is plenty of criticism of the Army, which is not a bad thing if it is constructive. But I haven't seen this particular point being raised.

[NRao]

This point is inextricably linked to the sorry state of the military forum where thinking/researching contributors are a rarity.

Generally true of BR. It has degraded over the years - some threads very badly. And no one is minding the store either.

[rohitvats]

Rohit bhai I have heard this on forums many a times but I am puzzled how can anyone drown anyone's opinion unless his ability to post is hampered (this can only happen on a comments section of a blog/newspaper or a tv debate when you are not given opportunity to post/speak) ? <SNIP>

Negi - my point was limited to personal attacks which a poster with contrary POV is subject to.

This happens most in any discussion where religion is main or tangential topic - nowadays it is brought in almost everywhere. We are quick to label someone as anti-Hindu or anti-dharma or anti-this or anti-that. It has evolved as a tactic on BRF to shame someone and brand him as 'traitor' to national cause (as perceived by the majority)or few vocal members on a topic. The idea seems to be to ensure that everyone has to parrot the same line.

This need to stop immediately - I think the arguments from either side can stand on their merit and a reader can take a decision. Classic example of this is the OIT Thread - one poster with contrary POV was presented with N number of counter arguments and shown the holes in his argument. AFAIK, no name calling happened on that forum.

The same should be the case with other threads. And moderators need to manage this aspect more actively.

[Karan M]

<SNIP>There's no dearth of contrarian opinion on BR.

Fixed it for You.

At the risk of being overly simplistic, the fundamental "tonal" change in BRF--and it has happened in a creeping way-- is that a forum about Bharat Rakshaks, the Guardians of India, has transformed into Bharat Rakshak, where not the majority but at least 30-40% of posters see themselves as "the Bharat Rakshaks."

When you take yourself so seriously, your opinion becomes "fact", you come to the board for validation of your views, not knowledge or discussion, and critical thinking skills are substituted by pure raw emotion.

Obviously in the absence of depth, and sometimes not having nothing new to say at all, leads to repetition, dragging in political and religious biases, and if nothing else, ad hominem.

But where I am with the Mods is that I don't see them being able to influence quality of BRF. This realization has to dawn upon posters themselves, and sometimes the "superior, condescending" minority has to point it out.

The silver lining remains that as an information source BRF still represents the best of crowdsourcing.

Actually you didn't fix anything.

I have been watching your increasingly self righteous posts with more and more amazement.

In several prior posts, you have mocked other posters, frequently posted opinions which either lacked logic (case in point the bizarre claim of deducing NSG quality from one picture) or resorted to ad hominems when you could not convince other posters of the validity of your opinion.

In short, your posts are as much part of the "quality problem" as those of anyone else.

If BRF is sliding, then perhaps, you own the problem as well.

Perhaps irony is lost on those who fail to realize how most of what they are accusing everyone else of - applies to themselves as well.

Obviously in the absence of depth, and sometimes not having nothing new to say at all, leads to repetition, dragging in political and religious biases, and if nothing else, ad hominem.

[shiv]

^^I don't seem to recall such posts questioning the IA's "sekoolarism" in the Mil Forum much less calling for a change. Would it be possible for you to point to a couple of such posts? There is plenty of criticism of the Army, which is not a bad thing if it is constructive. But I haven't seen this particular point being raised.

In fact today is the first day I have used the word "sekoolar" and I don't know what it means. I have guessed that it means what the UPA represents. You will find many posts asking if the Indian army is waiting for direct orders from the PMO and asking if the army cannot take action without the PMOs orders or that the army will break free and do something.

The innuendo is that the Army needs to break free from the sekoolar PMO or that the sekoolar UPA is holding the army back from doing something due to the sekoolar UPA's commitments to others

The problem with arguments such as these is that they are too clever by half in putting a political explanation to an issue that may have a military explanation. Without waiting for the military explanation, the army is "given sympathy" for being forced to kowtow to the sekoolar government. Over the years the political explanations have gained ground and there is now a political explanation for everything because politics is very important. In fact politics is everything. Therefore military and technical details are now discarded and ignored. The political explanation is more valid and more important than any military explanation. BRF is ahead of itself by half. And BRFites have patted themselves regularly on the back repeatedly for this tremendous prescience.

What BRF is doing is gradually excluding a subset of people who are interested in certain technical military details and the people who can provide such detail Oh, of course BRFItes are a happy and self satisfied bunch. That is not the issue - but for those who came and went and those who will leave in the ensuing days and weeks the problem is pretty clear. BRF will not miss them. Those who leave BRF will miss the old BRF. That's all. As one entrenched veteran admin stated in a sudden paroxysm of wisdom "People are free to go where they want"