The Forum Rules - What Are They Exactly? And Where?

[Methuselah2]

I would really like to acquaint myself with them.

Anybody know their 'what/where/how'?
Thank you.

P.S. To my mind, SDF rules!

[soulster]

There is no list of rules on this forum. There was a thread or debate about it some time ago when there was a big bruhaha over something. Ralph feels that posting a set of rules is not needed. The only real rule is to treat each other with civility and don't attack others. I think there should be a posted set of rules, but if the moderator disagrees, so be it.

[ralpht]

At one time there was a list of rules posted somewhere. Maybe in one of the old formats. At any rate, Soulster nails it. Simple civility and manners.

[soulster]

The reason I think there should be a posted set of rules is because everyone has their own idea of what civility, manners, and respect is, as we have people from all walks of life and life experiences. One can't expect everyone to just "know".

I suppose if this place suddenly started gaining lots of new members, a posted list would be necessary.

But, again, it's not my forum.

[ralpht]

Soulster,
If there is any confusion as to what civility is, then we are in a heap of trouble.

[Roberta75]

The reason I think there should be a posted set of rules is because everyone has their own idea of what civility, manners, and respect is, as we have people from all walks of life and life experiences. One can't expect everyone to just "know".

I suppose if this place suddenly started gaining lots of new members, a posted list would be necessary.

But, again, it's not my forum.

"But, again, it's not my forum"

No dear it isn't it is Ralphs forum and Ralph runs in beautifuly IMO and as i said to you in another thread you go should start your own forum. We should never look back in our golden years regretting what we didnt do. Life is a big bowl of cherries and each day is a divine gift from our Heavenly Father. Dare to dream dear go start your own forum.

My personal best to you.

Roberta

[Methuselah2]

I whole-heartedly support SDF's one basic and sole tenet: "Simple civility and manners."

But I do have one question to address that I will get to.

In looking back at various threads and individuals posts that take issue with the number of SUPREMES-RELATED THREADS AND POSTS, I was immediately struck by the entire 'taking issue' aspect of it in itself.

Members who 'took issue' were unquestionably entitled to. And though I may not agree with their stance in any way, I would have to say that I don't think, perhaps, any of them went out of the bounds of "simple civility and manners" in regard to how they expressed themselves overall.

And yet, for me, I clearly think all of them had crossed the "simple civility and manners" threshold. And for one simple reason:

Issue was being taken.

It seems to me that any member who posts any number of Supremes-related threads/posts is, without question, completely within the purview and purpose of SDF. Such members are directing their attention to what interests them. I realize it's the 'amount' of that interest that is what's troubling to some others. And I can understand that some will feel that way.

And so, my question is:

Is it within "simple civility and manners" to take issue with another member's interest--or even the extent of that interest--in any way?

Personally, I don't think it is.

[soulster]

Soulster,
If there is any confusion as to what civility is, then we are in a heap of trouble.

As a society? Yup! We are!

[soulster]

I whole-heartedly support SDF's one basic and sole tenet: "Simple civility and manners."

But I do have one question to address that I will get to.

In looking back at various threads and individuals posts that take issue with the number of SUPREMES-RELATED THREADS AND POSTS, I was immediately struck by the entire 'taking issue' aspect of it in itself.

Members who 'took issue' were unquestionably entitled to. And though I may not agree with their stance in any way, I would have to say that I don't think, perhaps, any of them went out of the bounds of "simple civility and manners" in regard to how they expressed themselves overall.

And yet, for me, I clearly think all of them had crossed the "simple civility and manners" threshold. And for one simple reason:

Issue was being taken.

It seems to me that any member who posts any number of Supremes-related threads/posts is, without question, completely within the purview and purpose of SDF. Such members are directing their attention to what interests them. I realize it's the 'amount' of that interest that is what's troubling to some others. And I can understand that some will feel that way.

And so, my question is:

Is it within "simple civility and manners" to take issue with another member's interest--or even the extent of that interest--in any way?

Personally, I don't think it is.

Good question! OK, if that's what this is really all about...

Speaking for myself: I do not have a problem with whatever interest anyone has on this, or any other forum. My only gripe is, and I know I am not alone, is the sheer volume of Supremes-related threads and posts. They seem to dominate the forum to the point where this place is no longer interesting. It's like it's turned into a Supremes or Diana Ross forum, and that is because we have, in the last couple of years, had an influx of hard-core fans of the singers, and it seems that is all they are interested in.

I have, in recent days, seen yet another effort to broaden the scope of discussion here. I know i've tried. And, it doesn't help when a lot of the veteran members skim the forum, but don't speak up or participate. Maybe they are waiting until things go back to the way it used to be. But, it won't go back without their participation.

I will continue to post about a wider assortment of music-related topics. Unfortunately, most will sink down to the bottom because it seems that the majority of the forum isn't interested in much of anything outside of Motown, or what veteran act is playing where Ralph says it's cool to discuss more things than just Motown and Detroit.

Just my opinion.

[Methuselah2]

I suppose like most things, evolution determines what eventually happens--and in this case, members' interest will impact heavily on the evolution of the Forum. But that interest-determining factor seems a completely natural process to me--of and all on its own because it's merely an outgrowth of something meaningful for any member. It's when a process becomes deliberate--by means of restrictions and limitations that are intended to curtail another in a personal way, such as taking aim at their interests and the extent of them--that I worry about.

[soulster]

The silent members need to start threads and participate instead of being passive. The membership makes a forum wants it was it to be, and if people with interests other than those three or four singers don't start posting about what they are interested in, this place will become the Diana Ross/Supremes forum.

If there is a variety of topics to discuss, there will be less bashing of the Supremes fans. But, one more time: it takes all those silent members to become active and quit waiting for things to just magically change to what they want. The newer people will not go away, if that's what they are waiting for. I'm not leaving. I'm tenacious! Stubborn, if you will. It's something I inherited from my parents, I guess.

Like I said, I try, but no one seems to want to talk about anything else but you-know-what. And, as much as I like to talk about politics, I get tired of it. But, no one here is interested in much else.

Sure, there are other places on the internet where I can get my fix of audio discussion, but why not here? We discuss music few, if any other music site will discuss, and that's soul music.

[Jerry Oz]

Even if someone bombs the forum with Supremes-themed threads, it's easy enough to ignore them without starting arguments. The arguments tend to keep them on top of the first page for days instead of letting them filter away. Besides, if I don't like a thread's topic, I tend to avoid it and let others enjoy it who find it more interesting than I do. That's the "civility" part of participating in a community like this. And I have three points regarding the arguments:
1. Has anyone here EVER changed someone else's mind? Especially after 40 years of worshiping/hating a band /group /type of music /record label /singer /musician /writer /personality? The answer is "no". So after an objection has been posted, kindly let it go.
2. Why get personal with the complaints? I've seen things go from mildly irritated criticism to full-nuclear assault on people in the span of a couple of posts and a few minutes. That can't be healthy for either party.
3. I believe that one of the reasons a lot of people have left is the fact that instead of taking beefs off-line via PMing the other party, people will fight with each other over the course of an evening, killing other's interest in the thread. What makes you think anybody wants to read heated words between two folks in a forum that should be [[and mostly is) a feel good place to share opinions and news about something we all love: soul music?

Ralph is right. We know when we cross the lines of civility and it should be easy to make your point and move on. I hope that I won't get attacked for this...

[soulster]

Even if someone bombs the forum with Supremes-themed threads, it's easy enough to ignore them without starting arguments. The arguments tend to keep them on top of the first page for days instead of letting them filter away. Besides, if I don't like a thread's topic, I tend to avoid it and let others enjoy it who find it more interesting than I do. That's the "civility" part of participating in a community like this. And I have three points regarding the arguments:

I have only read and participated in ONE of those threads in recent months, and that was only so I could have some fun with that artist.

2. Why get personal with the complaints? I've seen things go from mildly irritated criticism to full-nuclear assault on people in the span of a couple of posts and a few minutes. That can't be healthy for either party.

Ralph will remove harassing posts if he sees them. I have been informed that one person keeps joining posting under aliases. Ralph knows who it is, too. This person just keeps toeing the line, gets their little digs in, but not enough for Ralph to ban that person.

3. I believe that one of the reasons a lot of people have left is the fact that instead of taking beefs off-line via PMing the other party, people will fight with each other over the course of an evening, killing other's interest in the thread. What makes you think anybody wants to read heated words between two folks in a forum that should be [[and mostly is) a feel good place to share opinions and news about something we all love: soul music?

Those people haven't left. they are lurking, but they don't participate. They don't do anything to rectify the situation. I've been on this forum for a decade on and off. It used to be a different place. I'm not one of these "newbies".

Ralph is right. We know when we cross the lines of civility and it should be easy to make your point and move on. I hope that I won't get attacked for this...

I honestly don't think some of the brain-damaged people on this forum know when they have crossed the line. They go off like the crazies on Hardcore Pawn.

The fact that this topic keeps coming up means there is something needs to be fixed on this forum. But, some people, including Ralph, don't believe it needs fixing, and others who do have differing ideas on what needs to be done.

[ralpht]

Soulster,
I believe this topic keeps coming up because it keeps coming up for no real good reason in my opinion. The question was asked about forum rules. In reality, a simple answer. Civility. This thread didn't need to go any further than that. I honestly think that there are those, yourself included, that have a hard time going with the flow of this forum and simply accepting it for what it is: a rather interesting place that has gone through a multitude of phases but keeps cranking it out.

[Methuselah2]

Ralph - I very much appreciate what you've said. And since I started this thread and also brought the Supremes-posts situation into it, I feel moved to respond.

As a fairly new member to the Form [[about 8 months), I've come across various posts that mention rules, guidelines, what-have-you, that often have been considered by some to be ignored by others. So, I thought I should acquaint myself with those rules since I had recently been involved in another somewhat sticky thread.

And so, I ran a search to find them, thinking they would be easy to locate since they've been referenced in general. But to no avail. However, a thread of yours popped up from 4-9-12 that addressed a variety of issues and concerns seemingly brought on by Supremes-related threads/posts in a number of ways.

I thought the thread was noticeably negative to Supremes-related posting in an extreme way. And that, in and of itself, isn't troubling to me. I have no problem that someone may not like certain subjects and their posts. Yet, I was troubled by the fact that an issue with those members who engage in such posting was being made. And I couldn't quite follow why--if such posting didn't violate such rules. Since the only basic 'rule' actually turns out to be "Simple civility and manners," taking issue with another's interests didn't seem very civil to me nor in the best of manners. Taking issue with a group over something like that seems inherently one thing to me: personal. And as I read through that last-April thread, Ralph, in which a great deal of annoyance, anger, and flat-out disgust was being voiced about Supremes-related threads, I couldn't help remembering an old epithet that I've heard used by various people at various times; to paraphrase it, it was if I was hearing voices now saying "Uh-oh, those Supremes people are really moving in. Well, there goes the Forum." It didn't seem pleasant to me. And it certainly didn't seem civil, either. So, some of the things I said in my earlier posts on this thread were my 'attempt' to respond with "Don't they have the right to be here just like anyone else? They're not in violation of anything, are they?

I thank you and the Forum for the opportunity to ask and to say what was on my mind. And a thank you to those who engaged in the conversation of this thread. Regardless of your position, I believe what has been said has been, and will be, helpful.

[soulster]

Soulster,
I believe this topic keeps coming up because it keeps coming up for no real good reason in my opinion. The question was asked about forum rules. In reality, a simple answer. Civility. This thread didn't need to go any further than that. I honestly think that there are those, yourself included, that have a hard time going with the flow of this forum and simply accepting it for what it is: a rather interesting place that has gone through a multitude of phases but keeps cranking it out.

You do have a point. Well, apart from the occasional announcement of new reissues or the political stuff, I really am not getting much out of this place these days. I am looking for something i'm not getting here. The active membership doesn't want it here. I guess it's time for a break. But, I will be back.

Methuselah2,

No one, or at least i'm not, saying the Supremes fans don['t have a right to be here. All I, and some of us are saying is ease up a bit. And, I say to the rest of the forum: quit lurking and jump in! Participate! Diversify!

Later!

[ralpht]

Soulster,
Maybe it is time for you to take a bit of a break. You wouldn't be the first to do it. Hell, there are times I wish I could. I hope you find what you are looking for out there, but remember the door remains open for you. Best of luck.