Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

That might stand as a decent example. What I meant by 'get rid of' was to remove from political power by democratic means those who resist action on global warming. If 'get rid of' is can be interpreted in many ways, and is a phrase that too much implies violence, I could edit the post and use longer and more descriptive phrases to describe the means by which denialists might properly be removed from positions of political power.

Given that a phrase like 'get rid of' most definitely can be interpreted in many ways, all too many of which do imply violent intent, up to and including the gulag, ethnic cleansing, or even genocide, you're far from being the only person around here who has become wide open to being thus misunderstood. Especially given that Howe and Strauss may have actually helped lay the groundwork for such misunderstandings by using such descriptions of Prophet Generations (like Boomers) as "authoritarian", and "given to impulses to harsh retribution and apocalyptic outcomes". (Quote actually loose paraphrases which I believe nonetheless capture the essence of their meaning.)

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Given that a phrase like 'get rid of' most definitely can be interpreted in many ways, all too many of which do imply violent intent, up to and including the gulag, ethnic cleansing, or even genocide, you're far from being the only person around here who has become wide open to being thus misunderstood. Especially given that Howe and Strauss may have actually helped lay the groundwork for such misunderstandings by using such descriptions of Prophet Generations (like Boomers) as "authoritarian", and "given to impulses to harsh retribution and apocalyptic outcomes". (Quote actually loose paraphrases which I believe nonetheless capture the essence of their meaning.)

Perhaps, but one of my personal major themes has been the very long term trend from authoritarian government towards democracy. In every crisis, I will point out progress being made from the authoritarian, religious (or high church), conservative, rural culture towards democratic, secular (or low church), progressive, urban culture. I believe that for three turnings it is hard to move along that axis, but in the fourth turning significant movement is possible. This perspective is not the only possible perspective, and one may discuss its merit, but it is one of my major themes. To choose to ignore this theme when interpreting what I mean by 'get rid of' is the sort of choice one would expect from someone who fits the above S&H boomer stereotype.

On the other hand, there is a cheap name calling tactic of the blues calling reds fascists, while the reds call the blues communists. This sort of thing again fits that bad boomer stereotype, of being more interested in calling the other guy names than understanding what he is trying to say.

Anyway, I am interested mostly in talking to folks who are not out to demonize me at every possible opportunity, who are not deliberately seeking out ways to misunderstand what I am saying. We would be far better off trying to share ideas rather than score points by finding ways to demean and distort each other's perspectives.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Perhaps, but one of my personal major themes has been the very long term trend from authoritarian government towards democracy. In every crisis, I will point out progress being made from the authoritarian, religious (or high church), conservative, rural culture towards democratic, secular (or low church), progressive, urban culture. I believe that for three turnings it is hard to move along that axis, but in the fourth turning significant movement is possible. This perspective is not the only possible perspective, and one may discuss its merit, but it is one of my major themes. To choose to ignore this theme when interpreting what I mean by 'get rid of' is the sort of choice one would expect from someone who fits the above S&H boomer stereotype.

On the other hand, there is a cheap name calling tactic of the blues calling reds fascists, while the reds call the blues communists. This sort of thing again fits that bad boomer stereotype, of being more interested in calling the other guy names than understanding what he is trying to say.

Why do you think I don't trust Boomers (like us) to have their finger on the button during a 4T? A GenXer like Obama may be the best person to have in that position because of preferring practical solutions over harsh retribution.

Originally Posted by Ghost Echo

Well for the first time (I was too blind too see it before) I see this happen in my "Psychedelic Cusp" parents (Late Silents, Aquarian Boomers). Although they start out listening to the other side during the stages of an election, they eventually become hardened idealologs. Personally I don't trust any of the candidates, but I watch them play their games. But to my parents one side is purely evil, every criticism is a conspiracy, and they refuse to listen to any of their commercials or comments on TV. Looking back during every election "our" candidate was a messenger from God and the opposing side was a potential antichrist. Recently I've tried to keep things on political keel in my house by mentioning the opposing view or correction. But I've gotten to the point to just remain quiet and eagerly wait for the election to be over.

I can sympathize. And yet, at a time of crisis, values must shift. And yet, when forces attempt to shift values, people will resist. It is tempting to stay silent and do nothing. It is tempting to wish there were fewer people with passion.

Yet, it cannot be. The problems presented by Crisis cannot be left unsolved.

Anyway, from time to time I repost a few favored documents that capture the spirit of a 4T. Yes, there is a violent passion. Yet there is also, in the best of a 4T, something more, a reaching out to create something more, a fellowship with one's fellow man. Granted, we are not all great men. We have not yet bathed in the fire to be hardened to what must be. We are not yet at the place where the following sort of notes might be written...

GENTLEMEN: I have your letter of the 11th, in the nature of a petition to revoke my orders removing all the inhabitants from Atlanta. I have read it carefully, and give full credit to your statements of the distress that will be occasioned, and yet shall not revoke my orders, because they were not designed to meet the humanities of the case, but to prepare for the future struggles in which millions of good people outside of Atlanta have a deep interest. We must have peace , not only at Atlanta, but in all America. To secure this, we must stop the war that now desolates our once happy and favored country. To stop war, we must defeat the rebel armies which are arrayed against the laws and Constitution that all must respect and obey. To defeat those armies, we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses, provided with the arms and instruments which enable us to accomplish our purpose.

Now, I know the vindictive nature of our enemy, that we may have many years of military operations from this quarter; and, therefore, deem it wise and prudent to prepare in time. The use of Atlanta for warlike purposes is inconsistent with its character as a home for families. There will be no manufactures, commerce, or agriculture here, for the maintenance of families, and sooner or later want will compel the inhabitants to go. Why not go now, when all the arrangements are completed for the transfer, instead of waiting till the plunging shot of contending armies will renew the scenes of the past month? Of course, I do not apprehend any such thing at this moment, but you do not suppose this army will be here until the war is over. I cannot discuss this subject with you fairly, because I cannot impart to you what we propose to do, but I assert that our military plans make it necessary for the inhabitants to go away, and I can only renew my offer of services to make their exodus in any direction as easy and comfortable as possible.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept the South into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation.

You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.

We don't want your negroes, or your horses, or your houses, or your lands, or any thing you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and, if it involves the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it.

You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, by the original compact of Government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, customhouses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or tittle of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands upon thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve.

Now that war comes home to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success.

But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.

Now you must go, and take with you the old and feeble, feed and nurse them, and build for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over your old homes at Atlanta.

Yours in haste,

W. T. SHERMAN, Major-General commanding.

At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then, a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new would be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this, four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war, seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invoked His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully.

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh". If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether".

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

How about Cato the Elder's "Carthago delenda est!" (America delenda est?)

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I can sympathize. And yet, at a time of crisis, values must shift. And yet, when forces attempt to shift values, people will resist. It is tempting to stay silent and do nothing. It is tempting to wish there were fewer people with passion.

Yet, it cannot be. The problems presented by Crisis cannot be left unsolved.

Anyway, from time to time I repost a few favored documents that capture the spirit of a 4T. Yes, there is a violent passion. Yet there is also, in the best of a 4T, something more, a reaching out to create something more, a fellowship with one's fellow man. Granted, we are not all great men. We have not yet bathed in the fire to be hardened to what must be. We are not yet at the place where the following sort of notes might be written...

Here's another I would expect would fit more with America's likely future.

Originally Posted by Thaddeus Stevens

"Let us not be deceived. Those who talk about peace in sixty days are shallow statesmen. The war will not end until the government shall more fully recognize the magnitude of the crisis; until they have discovered that this is an internecine war in which one party or the other must be reduced to hopeless feebleness and the power of further effort shall be utterly annihilated. It is a sad but true alternative. The South can never be reduced to that condition so long as the war is prosecuted on its present principles.

And one from World War II:

Originally Posted by Franklin Roosevelt

"We have got to be tough with Germany and I mean the German people not just the Nazis. We either have to castrate the German people or you have got to treat them in such a manner so they can't just go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past."

Here's another from World War II:

Originally Posted by Ilya Ehrenberg

"Now we understand the Germans are not human. Now the word 'German' has become the most terrible curse. Let us not speak. Let us not be indignant. Let us kill. If you do not kill a German, a German will kill you. He will carry away your family, and torture them in his damned Germany. If you have killed one German, kill another."

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Here's another I would expect would fit more with America's likely future.

Yes, part of the 4T is pure hate. The quotes you chose reflect a pure conflict situation that must be decisive, and therefore must be brutal. Such is common in a 4T conflict.

My quotes try to reflect that some of the most determined, stubborn and ruthless figures in a 4T will also turn it around and be open to peace. Sherman, sharing his last cracker. Lincoln, speaking of malice towards none, and charity towards all. Then there is Winston Churchill...

In War: Resolution
In Defeat: Defiance
In Victory: Magnanimity
In Peace: Good Will

There is more to the 4T mindset than hate. It is not all about destroying an enemy. One should be fighting to create something newer and better beyond, always remembering that the conflict must come to an end.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

There is more to the 4T mindset than hate. It is not all about destroying an enemy. One should be fighting to create something newer and better beyond, always remembering that the conflict must come to an end.

Suppose the side which proves victorious has succeeded in convincing itself that the utter destruction of their enemy is an absolute prerequisite for the creation of that newer, better world following the coming of peace? That said creation cannot be done successfully unless the other side has been completely eliminated first? Kinda like Elizabeth III feels about the Republic of Haven, if you remember your Honorverse.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Suppose the side which proves victorious has succeeded in convincing itself that the utter destruction of their enemy is an absolute prerequisite for the creation of that newer, better world following the coming of peace? That said creation cannot be done successfully unless the other side has been completely eliminated first? Kinda like Elizabeth III feels about the Republic of Haven, if you remember your Honorverse.

I am reminded of a Churchill quote. You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else. After the Chamberlain appeasements, I don't know that the British really did all that much better. I even anticipate that the fictional Elizabeth III of Manticore will eventually come around, and find common cause with the Republic of Haven. She was snookered. She won't like it. Woe be unto those who snookered her.

Perhaps the western democracies have been lucky in getting people like Lincoln, FDR and Churchill in charge at the right time. Perhaps democracies do have some ability to find the right person when they absolutely have to. Perhaps a reasonably good person will become great when they absolutely positively have to. Perhaps any decently good person, becoming responsible for all the bloodshed and hardship of a crisis, will be drawn to find a way to end it, and to prevent the hardship from returning.

Yes, the wrong leader at a critical time could create disaster. In any crisis one can find pure ideologue haters, dedicated to their cause and the destruction of their enemies. Still, the people who end up as chief executives during such times are coalition builders. The see and feel strongly about the new values and a need for change, yet they aren't flaming partisan haters.

The New York Times catches NBC censoring itself. For discussion purposes...

NBC has taken the unusual step of editing the online video version of a “Saturday Night Live” skit.

Two characters in a sketch about the Congressional bailout are no longer labeled “people who should be shot” in the revised version of the video, which was posted online Tuesday night. Those two characters represented actual people, Herb and Marion Sandler, who sold subprime loans to Wachovia.

NBC abruptly removed the skit from its Web site on Tuesday, prompting some bloggers to surmise that the network had come under pressure to make it disappear. The sketch, which pretended to be a C-SPAN press conference with “victims” of the financial crisis, assigned some of the blame to Democrats.

Explaining the move, NBC said in a statement: “Upon review, we caught certain elements in the sketch that didn’t meet our standards.”

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I even anticipate that the fictional Elizabeth III of Manticore will eventually come around, and find common cause with the Republic of Haven. She was snookered. She won't like it. Woe be unto those who snookered her.

I'm just waiting to see whether, and how soon, Princess Ruth, Anton Zilwicki, or both can open the Queen's eyes concerning the fact that instead of fighting each other, she and the Pritchart Administration should be joining forces to go Scorpion hunting, perhaps with Adm. Honor Harrington taking overall command of a joint strike fleet from both Haven and Manticore, and Adm. Lester Tourville as her second-in-command.
(Scorpion - Audobon Ballroom term for Mesans in general, and Manpower Unlimited in particular.)

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

I'm just waiting to see whether, and how soon, Princess Ruth, Anton Zilwicki, or both can open the Queen's eyes concerning the fact that instead of fighting each other, she and the Pritchart Administration should be joining forces to go Scorpion hunting, perhaps with Adm. Honor Harrington taking overall command of a joint strike fleet from both Haven and Manticore, and Adm. Lester Tourville as her second-in-command.
(Scorpion - Audobon Ballroom term for Mesans in general, and Manpower Unlimited in particular.)

Yep. This has to be coming eventually, but it seems like the author wants to establish the new bad guys first, before shifting the focus of the series that much.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Yep. This has to be coming eventually, but it seems like the author wants to establish the new bad guys first, before shifting the focus of the series that much.

I would have thought that between 'Shadow of Saganami', 'At All Costs' and the soon-to-be-published 'Storm from the Shadows', he would have had the Detweilers, Ms. Anisimovna, and Ms. Bardasano pretty well established as properly villainous Scorpions.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

I would have thought that between 'Shadow of Saganami', 'At All Costs' and the soon-to-be-published 'Storm from the Shadows', he would have had the Detweilers, Ms. Anisimovna, and Ms. Bardasano pretty well established as properly villainous Scorpions.

True, but then there is the longevity of the Honor-verse to consider. The main series of Honor books escalates. It starts with a tricky covert move in peacetime, the escalates to a larger tricky battle in peacetime, then works through the war stories with ever increasing size fleets, ever more potent weapons. The attack on Manticore's home system is about as far as one can escalate that sequence without changing bad guys, without the Solarian / Scorpion folk becoming the heavies.

I think a Manti Peep alliance against the Scorpians will come, but I would entirely understand if he takes his time in getting there. It would be entirely understandable if he focuses on politics, cultures and corruption for several more books, operating on a smaller scale during a time of more or less peace, before going back to all out war.

Hello everyone,
Bellow is a new set of rules being proposed for the forum. This is only to clarify existing rules and expectations. Our idea is that both monitors and users should have clear guidelines of what the expected etiquette and consequences are. There is also a guidelines area which outlines recommended practices to keep the forum fun, operational and clutter free. These are the rules which are currently being used to monitor the forum.

Please feel free to provide constructive comments. Eventually these rules will be tailored and posted in an area where they can be easily accessed from anywhere in the forum.

RULES:
1. Be respectful of other users and their opinions in all discussions.
2. No threats of violence (ie. threats of suicide, self-injury, or physical harm toward anyone). Discussions of suicide and self-harm are not permitted.
3. No use of explicit, racist, obscene or vulgar language, images or messages.
4. No posts that bait, attack, or abuse others. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated. All users engaged in attacking and baiting each other will receive at least a one point warning. If you engage after being baited, you will still receive a warning/point(s). If a user is always annoying please remember the "Ignore list" in your settings.
5. No advertising or links to advertising or "Spam" is permitted.

• Advertising or spam is defined as posting a link for the purpose of selling, soliciting or promoting something.
• Links promoting fundraising, advocacy, etc. are not permitted.
• Posts in languages other than English will most likely be considered spam.
• Sharing of links to helpful and relevant web sites and resources is allowed if they are not used for a promotional purpose.
• Any post identified as spam will be deleted and the user will be banned.
• Flooding a thread with multiple posts so as to make it inactive is spam and the user will be banned
• Deleting and re-posting the same posts is considered a spamming activity.

6. Do not post offline personal contact information (ie. your home address, phone numbers etc.) and do not ask for personal information from others. This is to protect your security and identity.
7. Do not cross-post. Cross-posting refers to posting new duplicate threads or posts, or the linking to threads or posts already started by the member with the intention of gaining exposure.

ENFORCEMENT:
Monitors and administrators use a five point system on this forum. If a user receives a total of 5 active points they will be temporarily banned from the forum.
Minor indiscretions of the rules will receive 1 point. The more severely an act breaks or disregards forum rules, the more points will be allotted. Blatant abuses of the forum and its community will result in a permanent ban.

GUIDELINES:
1. Check for open topics. Before posting a new topic, please check to see if there is already a topic open on the subject.
2. Ignore bothersome members. If there is someone on the forum that bothers you, add them to your ignore list. Click on “settings” in the upper left-hand corner, then under setting column on the right click on “edit ignore list” and add their username.
3. Report posts that violate the rules. Do this by selecting the “Report Post” warning triangle in the lower right corner of the post.
4. Welcome new members. Help new folks "learn the ropes" about how to find information and resources, save time, and how to get involved.
5. Use descriptive titles for new posts. Avoid "generic" post subjects like "Help" or "Question". You will receive a better response to your posts by making your title more descriptive about the content of your post.
6. Be respectful of moderators in both the forums and any private communications.
[7]

*Red items were adjusted, added, or deleted in March 2012

One needs to be careful not to stifle discussion by imposing infractions on people for suggesting that something violent may occur in the future.

There is a difference between threatening violence and suggesting that certain situations/behaviors may cause violence to occur.

For instance, saying "If such and such a condition continues in society or gets worse, then the persons imposing those conditions may end up facing violence from people who just won't take it anymore" - is a valid point of discussion, and not a threat. To ban such suggestions is to stifle free speech and limit open discussion in an unacceptable way.

Originally Posted by takascar2

One needs to be careful not to stifle discussion by imposing infractions on people for suggesting that something violent may occur in the future.

There is a difference between threatening violence and suggesting that certain situations/behaviors may cause violence to occur.

For instance, saying "If such and such a condition continues in society or gets worse, then the persons imposing those conditions may end up facing violence from people who just won't take it anymore" - is a valid point of discussion, and not a threat. To ban such suggestions is to stifle free speech and limit open discussion in an unacceptable way.

If you had said that I'd agree. Personally, that is not how I read this:

Originally Posted by takascar2

The people aren't fooled by you right wing gas-bags anymore. The game is up. Either move out of the way of progress or the people will come with a rope and you will be the first one strung up, along with wall st. bankers and crooked politicians (dems and repugs)!!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yes, there's a big difference between saying "violence will occur" and "you will be the first one strung up."
Not to mention that telling a "gas-bag" to move out of the way also stifles open discussion.

Refer to my earlier comment about being the arbiter.

... so you aren't judgemental?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... so you aren't judgemental?

Every human being makes judgements about right and wrong. Read this forum for 30 seconds and you will see judgmental behavior wherever you look. Its what makes the forum worth reading.

I have never understood this fixation by the obviously judgmental left about people on the right being judgmental. Being judgmental is universal.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Every human being makes judgements about right and wrong. Read this forum for 30 seconds and you will see judgmental behavior wherever you look. Its what makes the forum worth reading.

I have never understood this fixation by the obviously judgmental left about people on the right being judgmental. Being judgmental is universal.

James50

Feel free to judge a person's opinions; less so, the person.

Back to the New Rules:

I think it is important to clarify the role of the moderator as keeping the forum a safe environment with as little censorship as possible. While the rules provided seem to support basic safety and respectful dialogue (which should be upheld), it is important that they are not embellished.

Keeping that in mind, I'm curious to what people think of the "stay on topic" guideline. Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Corenabh

Back to the New Rules:

I think it is important to clarify the role of the moderator as keeping the forum a safe environment with as little censorship as possible. While the rules provided seem to support basic safety and respectful dialogue (which should be upheld), it is important that they are not embellished.

Keeping that in mind, I'm curious to what people think of the "stay on topic" guideline. Thoughts?

Good luck with that! Topic drift has ruled every board or list I've ever been on.

Originally Posted by Corenabh

Back to the New Rules:

I think it is important to clarify the role of the moderator as keeping the forum a safe environment with as little censorship as possible. While the rules provided seem to support basic safety and respectful dialogue (which should be upheld), it is important that they are not embellished.

Keeping that in mind, I'm curious to what people think of the "stay on topic" guideline. Thoughts?

If we were to take that guideline seriously, we would lose the "What's Going on With You" thread, the other one about people's listening habits (which is mildly amusing), and the MBTI and Enneagram threads.

As long as people aren't spamming or abusing each other, I think a certain level of topic drift is okay.

Originally Posted by Corenabh

Keeping that in mind, I'm curious to what people think of the "stay on topic" guideline. Thoughts?

Two thoughts:

First, like Badger already pointed out, it's just Not Gonna Happen. Thread drift occurs much faster than anyone could keep up with it. That's just the way conversation is -- it ranges..
Second, I'm of the opinion that thread drift is a positive, not a negative. We engage with other people primarily to be able to encounter new things, and what could be less conducive to that than an atmosphere of conversation-only-along-certain-firm-lines?