Originally Posted by Semo '75

Sure, because nobody wants to waste time and effort posting in a forum that appears to be made up primarily of quarreling second graders*. Nobody wants to waste time and effort on a post that's going to end up buried under an avalanche of personal drama by the following day. (The same can be said of all the one-post vanity threads, but that's not a general problem, it's tied to one specific individual's need for attention.)

You don't have to be the target in order to find that sort of stuff annoying.

It's not just a matter of ignoring it, because that's fairly easy even without the ignore function. It's a matter of thinking long and hard about how much is worth not ignoring these days.

Every once in a while, a new poster will show up, post some comments about the theory, only to disappear a few days later after they're simply ignored, someone tries to enmesh them in drama, or one of our "brave" partisan crusaders decides to play sheriff and make an example of them.

I actually asked the question in all seriousness. I was not trying to be snarky. And thank you for taking the question in the spirit in which it was intended.

I guess I have thicker skin than some folks and am more willing to be rough-and-tumble.

This whole "controversy" is a perfect example of what I'm talking about! In an attempt to coax older posters back and get new posters to stick around, John suggested to Craig a moderated area where people could discuss The Theory without worrying about being caught up in ridiculous drama.

The response?

Drama.

The drama is only about John's claiming that he has the right to isolate posts from prior to the time he became a site moderator and demand that they be "edited" to his satisfaction or else they'll be deleted. That's the only issue I have with this. I suggested an alternative, and John evaded the question.

Look, everyone who's been here for a period of time has been subjected to ad hominems. No one else here is asking for the power to delete posts that aren't flattering to them. I don't have a problem with John doing that in a forum which he moderates and for which he sets the guidelines. I DO have a problem with him doing it for posts which were written before the guidelines were announced.

I say: restore the offending posts, lock the old threads, and start fresh.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

All the world so dearly loves a car crash.

I haven't yet heard a good reason why John should be allowed to do what he wants with those old posts.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

. . . and John evaded the question.

And I suppose people who point the above out [and if history is a guide there will be many legitimate opportunities] will have their posts deleted.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I say: restore the offending posts, lock the old threads, and start fresh.

Why even lock the threads? Just restore them (in their entirety!) to their original locations such that unmoderated discussion may continue there. If Xenakis is to have his own personal "Myspace" at T4T, then let him create new threads therein. His administrative privileges should not extend beyond his personal "Myspace," which means that he should not be able to co-opt (or do anything else with) existing threads in other sections of the site.

But really, T4T suffers insofar as it is converted into something of a host site for personal "Myspaces." Xenakis already has his own site and it defies all legitimate reason why he does not simply start his forum there where he can quite obviously "moderate" to his heart's content. Other T4Ters who may be similarly afflicted with a desire to control content, but who lack their own websites, can simply go to blogspot.com (or a related site) and likewise "moderate" until the cows come home. There are all kinds of places out there that offer this opportunity, and for free. However, it is not needed here at T4T since it only works against T4T's longstanding and successful effort to facilitate free and open discussion and all that entails.

BTW, the "Ignore" function is a wonderful innovation. "Aggrieved" people really need to begin using it and quit complaining. It may be a hard truth for some to accept, but the universe truly does not revolve around any one person.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Why even lock the threads? Just restore them (in their entirety!) to their original locations such that unmoderated discussion may continue there. If Xenakis is to have his own personal "Myspace" at T4T, then let him create new threads therein. His administrative privileges should not extend beyond his personal "Myspace," which means that he should not be able to co-opt (or do anything else with) existing threads in other sections of the site.

That would be my preference as well.

I offered the locking suggestion to John as a compromise, because he started those threads and I know he feels responsible for them.

But really, T4T suffers insofar as it is converted into something of a host site for personal "Myspaces." Xenakis already has his own site and it defies all legitimate reason why he does not simply start his forum there where he can quite obviously "moderate" to his heart's content. Other T4Ters who may be similarly afflicted with a desire to control content, but who lack their own websites, can simply go to blogspot.com (or a related site) and likewise "moderate" until the cows come home. There are all kinds of places out there that offer this opportunity, and for free. However, it is not needed here at T4T since it only works against T4T's longstanding and successful effort to facilitate free and open discussion and all that entails.

Some people apparently feel differently, and I'm willing to go along with the experiment of a moderated forum. Let's see if these old regulars show up. I doubt that I would want to participate, but I don't see the harm in it, if that is what the site owners want.

BTW, the "Ignore" function is a wonderful innovation. "Aggrieved" people really need to begin using it and quit complaining. It may be a hard truth for some to accept, but the universe truly does not revolve around any one person.

It has saved me some grief, to be sure.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I actually asked the question in all seriousness. I was not trying to be snarky. And thank you for taking the question in the spirit in which it was intended.

Not a problem.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I guess I have thicker skin than some folks and am more willing to be rough-and-tumble.

Then I think that you missed my point. When it comes to discussing generational theory here, a forum set up specifically to discuss generational theory, the juice is rarely worth the squeeze. That's why people who come here to do so tend to leave after a very short while. It has nothing to do with having a thick skin or a thin skin.

As far as the rest goes, I actually don't care enough to argue about it. Everyone has made their position known and John has made his position known. Things are now as they are. That's pretty much the end of it as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

When it comes to discussing generational theory here, a forum set up specifically to discuss generational theory, the juice is rarely worth the squeeze. That's why people who come here to do so tend to leave after a very short while. It has nothing to do with having a thick skin or a thin skin.

The site is broken into several forums, not all of which have something to do directly with generational theory. For example, one can expect political debate in a forum called "Politics & Economics." If that is not one's cup of tea, they could try "Culture & Values." If they want to talk about Millies or Gen X, there are forums available for those. It seems to me that threads started within those forums are pretty much on-topic, or at least they do start out that way. Folks go off topic, to be sure, and sometimes there's more than one discussion going on within a thread, but the more experienced among us have learned to juggle.

The hard-core theory discussion can usually be found in "The Book and Theories of History."

Maybe an enterprising person could do a sticky or some kind of forum-specific FAQ about what goes on here, so the newbies wouldn't feel so much like they're being thrown to the wolves.

And those who want a moderated place can work with John.

Originally Posted by Flyingeye76

Well John, Craig and whoever else has my permission to eradicate all of my vanity threads in the design to make this a more pure forum.

I wasn't referring to you. You seek to begin discussions, not suppress them.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Maybe an enterprising person could do a sticky or some kind of forum-specific FAQ about what goes on here, so the newbies wouldn't feel so much like they're being thrown to the wolves.

I wouldn't say that this is a bad idea, but you're taking it up with the wrong person. I'm just a poster, not a moderator, and not the moderator.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

I wouldn't say that this is a bad idea, but you're taking it up with the wrong person. I'm just a poster, not a moderator, and not the moderator.

I'm just brainstorming. I don't know if Craig is reading this, but as long as we're talking about how to make things better around here, I thought I'd mention it. The FAQ that exists here is pretty generic.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I'm just brainstorming. I don't know if Craig is reading this, but as long as we're talking about how to make things better around here, I thought I'd mention it. The FAQ that exists here is pretty generic.

I am here, reading the tread and everyone's opinions. I am letting things shake out a little. While this decision was not made lightly, I really am not sure how things will ultimately play out. I do want to wait a bit to see.

I like the idea of adding to the FAQ. If others are interested, we can set up a thread to have that conversation. The FAQ currently is the one that comes with the forum software.

Let me know if you'd like to work on that front, and we can set up a thread to have the conversation.

-- Craig

In an exchange of e-mail messages this afternoon, Craig and I have
found that "we have a [mutual] fundamental misunderstanding" about
the moderated Generational Theory project, and we've decided to end
the project. I'll defer to Craig to provide further details, if he
wishes to do so.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

In an exchange of e-mail messages this afternoon, Craig and I have
found that "we have a [mutual] fundamental misunderstanding" about
the moderated Generational Theory project, and we've decided to end
the project.

This was a silly, pointless exercise. Anybody who dares to hold a contrary world-view to those who run the show here at this website are not welcome here.

There's certainly nothing wrong with that, save the pretentious, phony premise that, say, George Bush, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, Mark Levin, or any conservative whosoever, is in any way representative of his or her generation.

This is simply a website for the liberal generation, of whatever age or whatever they want to call themselves. Anyone else is simply not welcome at 4T.com.

Hmm, over already. That was quick. Didn't even have time to get off it's feet. Me, I was betting on it. It added something new to the forums.

But, you let an anthill turn into a mountain. More of the tiny disagreements that seem to plague the site these days. Nothing, more I can say except it made us open our eyes to what is actively going on with these forums.

That's one good thing that came out of this and I hope we don't forget this when your forums gone and the others go back to bickering.

It seems like the 4T's come to the 4t. Fun.

Originally Posted by zilch

This was a silly, pointless exercise. Anybody who dares to hold a contrary world-view to those who run the show here at this website are not welcome here.

There's certainly nothing wrong with that, save the pretentious, phony premise that, say, George Bush, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, Mark Levin, or any conservative whosoever, is in any way representative of his or her generation.

This is simply a website for the liberal generation, of whatever age or whatever they want to call themselves. Anyone else is simply not welcome at 4T.com.

I don't know about everyone else, but I have/had no problem with Xenakis having his fun, as long as he didn't have the ability to permanently wipe out pre-moderation posts and as long as Craig had final authority in any kind of disagreement that might arise in the Generational Dynamics area. Is that so much to ask of someone who already has his own site?

And I don't think Xenakis's politics, or even his position on saecular theory, were the issue, but rather what meglomania John would be capable of with absolute power. Surely you wouldn't me or Seadog or the like having such power over your posts, now would you? If you wouldn't mind, let me know and can talk to Craig.

Despite what some people have written, this mutual decision between John and I has nothing to do with John's political leanings, theories, or anything along those lines.

We had a fundamental disagreement over the management of the moderated section. Rather than drag this out for weeks and then shut it down, John suggested that it may be best to stop early in the process.

After some reflection, I agreed the best course was to understand that the two of us had such a significant disagreement over the management of the moderated section that it made sense to cut our losses early.

Ultimately, this is my fault. I did not ask John enough questions and failed to get a thorough enough understanding of what he hoped to do.

I regret this for a variety of reasons. First, John did some significant work over the past few weeks. Second, I do think we should consider some alternatives for better managing the site -- and having the first attempt go so wrong is disheartening. Third, I did not want to add to the polarization and distrust among the members of these boards -- and based on the responses above, I've made things worse.

My best,

-- Craig

Originally Posted by webmaster

Despite what some people have written, this mutual decision between John and I has nothing to do with John's political leanings, theories, or anything along those lines.

I think that is understood by most.

Originally Posted by webmaster

We had a fundamental disagreement over the management of the moderated section. Rather than drag this out for weeks and then shut it down, John suggested that it may be best to stop early in the process.

After some reflection, I agreed the best course was to understand that the two of us had such a significant disagreement over the management of the moderated section that it made sense to cut our losses early.

Ultimately, this is my fault. I did not ask John enough questions and failed to get a thorough enough understanding of what he hoped to do.

I regret this for a variety of reasons. First, John did some significant work over the past few weeks. Second, I do think we should consider some alternatives for better managing the site -- and having the first attempt go so wrong is disheartening. Third, I did not want to add to the polarization and distrust among the members of these boards -- and based on the responses above, I've made things worse.

I don't know the exact nature of your disagreement with John, but please don't be disheartened, I doubt you asked for anything unreasonable. And I doubt you created any "polarizing" that didn't already exist.

Thank you trying to do something positive for the site.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

All the world so dearly loves a car crash.

Warm Leatherette and Sex on Wheels, anyone?

Originally Posted by Flyingeye76

I'm not trying to be mean or start a fight but I am curious to know what the two visions were. Honestly I'm still confused what went on.

Generally speaking, it was a philosophical disagreement over moderating strategies. Which is why I take the blame for this coming apart -- I should have figured that out when it was a back-channel e-mail conversation, not after a couple days of public activity.

So, given this disagreement over how best to go forward, John rightly noted that the project was not going to work and suggested it was best to end it early before too much of his time and effort was expended on it.

My best,

-- Craig

Originally Posted by The Rani

Because the webmaster has allowed him to do so.

I don't think so. Looks like the moderated threads have been shut down.

I should have given a thumbs down when John asked me about it. I really didn't think folks would care about what goes on in John's threads.

The vast bulk of the site was the same as before. Why all the drama about a theory thread? Since when are you or COS interested in theory? Have you even read the books?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The vast bulk of the site was the same as before. Why all the drama about a theory thread? Since when are you or COS interested in theory? Have you even read the books?

I have read the books, and I've read T4T twice. I am interested in the theory, but I know that right now I'm outclassed by you and John and Sean in doing any kind of critical analysis.

I had no problem with John wanting to do a moderated forum in which he could keep people on topic. My only issue was with him going back and deleting old posts that were written before the moderated forum was created.

Perhaps someone else who has the time and inclination would be willing to try this again. I'd suggest that they start from scratch with all new threads.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> I had no problem with John wanting to do a moderated forum in
> which he could keep people on topic. My only issue was with him
> going back and deleting old posts that were written before the
> moderated forum was created.

Craig was kind enough not to restore several of the most disgustingly
offensive messages. Why don't you get on your high horse about that?

What I discovered is that some forum members were cheering Sean Love
in the same way that some Palestinians danced in the streets for
Osama bin Laden on 9/11.

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Craig was kind enough not to restore several of the most disgustingly
offensive messages. Why don't you get on your high horse about that?

Did he get rid of the silliness about you claiming that Silifi was a sock puppet for Sean Love?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Craig was kind enough not to restore several of the most disgustingly
offensive messages. Why don't you get on your high horse about that?

What I discovered is that some forum members were cheering Sean Love
in the same way that some Palestinians danced in the streets for
Osama bin Laden on 9/11.

John

There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat, there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Outer Limits.

Originally Posted by The Rani

She probably didn't even notice that he did it. Looks like Mustang ain't so happy about the decision, though.

I think they were dancing with each other.

John