What is the most appropriate board for the Bowline discussion?

[xarax]

But here we have a sort of thread violence conducted by Xarax because of a differing opinion --and that is beyond the pale unacceptable, as is the continued utterance of ad hominen invective against those of different opinions/reasonings.

Nonsense ! And nonsense easily said, because you think you are the advocate of some "silent majority". I respect democracy, and that is why I have not participated in that farce of "voting", with the lamentable 5-1 outcome. How easy is to strir the public opinion against the "voiolent" person, that dares to have his own opinions...Am I a black sheep, or a black wolf ?   ( Black sheep can not be violent, black wolves might be...) You cunningly hide your violence in this vitriolic language, carefully hidden behind an incomprhensible idiomatic dialect. I have the courage to defend my opinion as I can, and I have the right to write or erase anything I want, without asking your permission, I am afraid. Next time, do not respond to anything I write, so you will have no problem with my "violence" (!). If you wish a slave, servant, subordinate or something, I suggest you talk about your problem to roo, who has a similar problem...

[WebAdmin]

Gentlemen,

To those of you whom it may concern:  I requested these debates in order to establish groundrules by which I would be able to better serve the forum.  I did not intend to open the forum up to additional vitriole which can and should be conducted off the forum by personal message or by email, as has been referred to in other posts concerning forum behaviour earlier this year.

It is also the opening statement of the Registration Agreement to which you have all electronically signed:
?You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing....?

As I have already expressed in private message to one person: "The forum exists to promote knotting, not personalities.  Personalities are what gives the forum its distinctive character, but generally speaking the entire membership wants only to be instructed, to share and to be encouraged in the pleasure that led the individual to us.

We allow sea-salts to be sea-salts, and aficionados to be sticklers, and debate to be lively, and so on, but we don't normally allow things to get out of hand. "

Drawing the line between the two halves of the last statement has been a learning curve for me, the more so since I judge you all to be gentlemen capable of dealing with a situation yourselves, and not needing me to step in or interfere.

Please, therefore return this discussion to the original subject, with no more of the personal attacks.

Thank you,
Glenys

[drnihili]

While I don't agree with his voting system proposal, I think Derek Smith is right that the thread should go back where it started.  There is no bright line that divides theory and practice.  As Dan Lehman has correctly pointed out, there is no unequivocal argument that the thread was misplaced originally.  Under those circumstances, I think that moving a thread over the objection of the OP does more harm than good.  As long as there are decent reasons for it to be in Practical knots, there it should stay even if the majority think it would have been better placed in theory.  The ill-will and antagonism generated by these maneuvers does far more to degrade the forums than a few less than perfectly placed threads ever could.  I say put it back and let's worry more about knots and less about nits.

[roo]

As Dan Lehman has correctly pointed out, there is no unequivocal argument that the thread was misplaced originally.

As Dan has pointed out in the "What defines a Bowline?" thread that Derek started in defiance of the moderators and the will of the forum members:

Really, now, let's keep track of the debate : it is precisely DEFINING
that is the subject issue (regardless of definging WHAT), and the
exercise of exploring definitions is a philosophical one, aside
from any practical aspects.  The suggested change is no change
at all --it completely misses the point.

By the way, that thread has become quite antagonistic, too.

The ill-will and antagonism generated by these maneuvers does far more to degrade the forums than a few less than perfectly placed threads ever could.  I say put it back and let's worry more about knots and less about nits.

So whoever gets the most antagonistic gets their way?  Like Derek in his suggestion of counting votes by thread participation, I don't think you've thought through the consequences of such a policy.

[DDK]

In my opinion, the "defining of a bowline" discussion belongs in the Knot Theory board.

Although I do not take issue with the using of a vote system if the moderator is not comfortable or familiar enough with the nature of the particular subject matter at hand, I would prefer that, generally, the moderator would just move the threads to where they best belong in their estimation and be done with it.  My experience has been that this is generally how it works in most forums for good reason, and so, I feel like we are reinventing the wheel here.

Certainly, once the moderator has made a decision, all the nonsense and whining should cease, because, (a) the forum will be more orderly and effective, (b) it is good manners and (c) IT IS OF SO LITTLE CONSEQUENCE.

DDK

[drnihili]

So whoever gets the most antagonistic gets their way?  Like Derek in his suggestion of counting votes by thread participation, I don't think you've thought through the consequences of such a policy.

Then you'd be grossly mistaken as I've thought about the consequences quite a bit.  But notice how you've not responded to the content of what I've said and have instead decided to resort to personal attack by calling into question whether I've exercised due care in forming my opinion.  I've moderated large forums.  Misplaced posts are at worst minor annoyances.  Antagonism generated by personal attacks of the sort you display can be devastating.

To be clear, I never suggested that the most antagonistic people get their way.  I've suggested only that board policy be crafted more with an eye to reducing antagonism than to making sure that every post is optimally placed.  Do you disagree?

[roo]

So whoever gets the most antagonistic gets their way?  Like Derek in his suggestion of counting votes by thread participation, I don't think you've thought through the consequences of such a policy.

Then you'd be grossly mistaken as I've thought about the consequences quite a bit.  But notice how you've not responded to the content of what I've said and have instead decided to resort to personal attack by calling into question whether I've exercised due care in forming my opinion.

 No personal attack was in any way intended.  Pointing out unintended consequences can and should be done, politely, as I believe I have done.

To be clear, I never suggested that the most antagonistic people get their way.  I've suggested only that board policy be crafted more with an eye to reducing antagonism than to making sure that every post is optimally placed.  Do you disagree?

You indirectly suggested it by noting that reduction of antagonism should be a higher goal over the prevention of hijacking of forum categories.  But what keeps those opposed to the hijacking of forum categories from raising their level of antagonism, so that their aims triumph?

I prefer that right reason prevail, not the pushers of antagonism and hostility.  

[DDK]

While I don't agree with his voting system proposal, I think Derek Smith is right that the thread should go back where it started.  There is no bright line that divides theory and practice.  As Dan Lehman has correctly pointed out, there is no unequivocal argument that the thread was misplaced originally.  Under those circumstances, I think that moving a thread over the objection of the OP does more harm than good.  As long as there are decent reasons for it to be in Practical knots, there it should stay even if the majority think it would have been better placed in theory.  The ill-will and antagonism generated by these maneuvers does far more to degrade the forums than a few less than perfectly placed threads ever could.  I say put it back and let's worry more about knots and less about nits.

I don't feel there needs to be an unequivocal argument that the thread was misplaced originally.  Certainly, in this case, the majority of those who expressed an opinion believed it to be misplaced.  The mistake of misplacing a thread is always made by an Original Poster, and so, their opinion on placement is no more relevant and possibly less so than any other.  Giving them special latitude would be a huge mistake in my estimation.  In my opinion, there has been a substantial degrading of the Practical Knots board because of the significant quantity of misplacement of threads which has not to this point been addressed to the extent needed.

DDK

[drnihili]

 No personal attack was in any way intended.  Pointing out unintended consequences can and should be done, politely, as I believe I have done.

Your post went beyond pointing out unintended consequences and speculated on whether I had given the matter enough thought.  In fact, you didn't even point out any unintended consequence, you merely dropped a rhetorical question based on a misreading of my post.  Whether you intended a personal attack or not, you made one.  I wouldn't normally go to such lengths to point this out, but the backstory of this debate is filled with personal attacks cast under a veneer of politeness and deniability.  It pays to be aware of and avoid them.

You indirectly suggested it by noting that reduction of antagonism should be a higher goal over the prevention of hijacking of forum categories.  But what keeps those opposed to the hijacking of forum categories from raising their level of antagonism, so that their aims triumph?

Again, I did not suggest it, even indirectly.  Let's go back to what I actually said:

As long as there are decent reasons for it to be in Practical knots, there it should stay even if the majority think it would have been better placed in theory.  The ill-will and antagonism generated by these maneuvers does far more to degrade the forums than a few less than perfectly placed threads ever could.

There is no suggestion there that we should wait to see which side is more antagonistic and then accede to their demands.  Instead I suggested that we follow a simple principle: allow posts to stay in their original forum so long as there is reasonable plausibility to that placement.  That principle is justified by its effect on the antagonism present in the forums, but it does not directly respond to that antagonism.

I prefer that right reason prevail, not the pushers of antagonism and hostility.  

I agree, and I hope that it yet may.  Part of right reason is appreciating when a "cure" is worse than the "disease".

[drnihili]

I don't feel there needs to be an unequivocal argument that the thread was misplaced originally.  Certainly, in this case, the majority of those who expressed an opinion believed it to be misplaced.  The mistake of misplacing a thread is always made by an Original Poster, and so, their opinion on placement is no more relevant and possibly less so than any other.  Giving them special latitude would be a huge mistake in my estimation.  In my opinion, there has been a substantial degrading of the Practical Knots board because of the significant quantity of misplacement of threads which has not to this point been addressed to the extent needed.

DDK

"unequivocal" is clearly too strong of a requirement, as you correctly point out.  Still, I think that the original poster's opinion does carry weight, primarily because it represents the status quo.  Threads should not be moved unless there is clear reason to do so.  It is moving that requires justification, not letting them stay put.

I'm not really a fan of deciding this sort of issue by vote either.  But aside from that general point, there is the finer point that for a vote to have validity there must be grounds for considering it to be representative of the will of the forum members.  Insofar as the vote on this issue shows anything, it shows that the majority of members simply aren't exercised enough by the dispute to voice an opinion.  Trying to suss a majority opinion by consider only 9 votes is impossible.

But then we're back to the need for justification.  If the vast majority of members don't care enough to vote, then there is no clear reason on that basis to move the thread and it should stay where it was.

**edit**

I meant to add that I can certainly appreciate your feeling that the practical forum has been degraded by misplaced posts.  I don't happen to agree, but I can understand how someone could reasonably feel that way.  In my opinion, such degradation is better addressed by looking at structural features of the forums rather than by moving particular threads whose placement is itself a large bone of contention.  Solve the underlying cause rather than chasing after the symptoms.

[roo]

I prefer that right reason prevail, not the pushers of antagonism and hostility.  

I agree, and I hope that it yet may.  Part of right reason is appreciating when a "cure" is worse than the "disease".

I would like to propose a compromise:  Perhaps an improved way to reduce antagonism and hostility is to have those who cannot behave themselves be banned quicker and for a longer period of time.

There are many forums that do not permit public commentary on specific moderator actions, and for good reason.

[Sweeney]

There are many forums that do not permit public commentary on specific moderator actions, and for good reason.

I have a good deal of sympathy with this view. For several years I was a qualified snooker referee (think pool with a bigger table and more balls). When I first qualified my examiner said at the end of the session (a practical exam like a driving test) that I should always remember that whereas the rules of the game fill a small book there are only 2 rules to refereeing:

1. The referee is always right; and

2. If the referee is wrong rule 1 applies.

Although said in jest there was a serious point - do not argue with the referee - by all means ask why a decision was made as it may not be obvious but accept the decision and play on. There is a presumption that the referee will be impartial, have sufficient knowledge of the subtleties when applying the rules and will act with honesty and integrity. A referee's bad decision will only affect the players if they allow it to - dwelling on it will lose you the game more surely than the decision itself.

Barry

[Dan_Lehman]

There is no bright line that divides theory and practice.
As Dan Lehman has correctly pointed out, there is no unequivocal argument
that the thread was misplaced originally. 

Although there is no bright line, there can be things well
on either side of where such a line is thought to exist.
I see the focus on organizing/classifying knots as one
better suited to what I hope the (ill-titled) "Knot Theory..."
forum should be.  And I see that both as a sort of negative
*decluttering* aspect to Practical Knots  interests AND
--also important-- a positive boost to the theory  one.

Isn't it wisely known that explorations into theory can have
practical benefits --we should expect from time to time to be
singling out some knotty workings from there to be focused
on or brought into discussion in Practical Knots (and
here I'm thinking of not the current/at-issue conceptual
thread but the more frequent and seemingly back-issue of
particular-knots-but-Are-They-Practical? musings : let those
musings if rather freely roaming occur w/o apology (not
that we're getting that anyway :-) ) under "<Theory>" and
some inevitable gains will *out* into practice.

I think that moving a thread over the objection of the OP does more harm than good.

NB:  the OP --viz., Agent_Smith-- has not been active since posting
early, and is not part of the Where...? debate.  But, in any case,
we should want some better guidelines on where things belong,
and only be moving threads that pretty clearly are misplaced.
In the main, we've not have frequent issues re this, except
mostly in re the Xarax suggestions for various definite knots
(which is the "back-issue" I referred to above), which stands
in distinction to the debate over this thread about classifying
knots.  A focus on classification  should be one happily put
into the other (re-titled (I make suggestions below)) forum.


.:.  As it seems that a principal antagonistic aspect it the TITLE
"Knot Theory..."  (and I'll object here to "& Computing" --which
I think merits a separate forum, if even that (should be, but so far....)),
there should be a good way forwards for all concerned, with a good
re-titling of one forum.

"Knotting Concepts & Explorations"
"Knots : philosophical investigations" [w/apologies to Wittgenstein ]
...
"<>"


--dl*
====

[SS369]

"Knotting Concepts & Explorations"
What a lovely Title. Hear, hear.
I vote (1) aye.

SS

[drnihili]

Although there is no bright line, there can be things well
on either side of where such a line is thought to exist.

I agree completely.

I see the focus on organizing/classifying knots as one
better suited to what I hope the (ill-titled) "Knot Theory..."
forum should be. 

Here I think is the crux of the matter.  Both the Practical and Decorative forums have relatively clear sense.  The boundaries may be vague and fuzzy, but it's not hard to guess the general idea behind each.  further, these correspond more or less to traditional distinctions.  The same does not seem, at least to me, to be true of the Theory forum.  In part this is because it's not clear what that forum is intended to be, but it is also because the boundary that separates theory from practice is generally less clear than that which separates practical and decorative domains.  So even if everyone agreed that thread focused on organizing/classifying knots belonged in the Theory forum, it would still be an open question which actual threads belonged there.  For example, once we start to talk of the difference between a bowline and a cowboy bowline we are talking about classifying knots.  I doubt anyone would hold that all such discussion should be moved to the Theory board.  Discounting threads started by xarax and the practical bowline thread (so as not to bias the sample) 3 of the first 5 threads in the practical forum deal with classification or other matters that might be deemed "theoretical".  I doubt anyone thinks they should be moved.  The line between theory and practice is very vague.

.:.  As it seems that a principal antagonistic aspect it the TITLE
"Knot Theory..."  (and I'll object here to "& Computing" --which
I think merits a separate forum, if even that (should be, but so far....)),
there should be a good way forwards for all concerned, with a good
re-titling of one forum.

"Knotting Concepts & Explorations"
"Knots : philosophical investigations" [w/apologies to Wittgenstein ]
...
"<>"

Given your view of what the forum should be, I think renaming it is essential.  Much as I love Wittgenstein, I'd have to second SS369's vote for "Knotting Concepts and Explorations".  Just be ready to wonder whether JD~TIAT's very interesting decorative innovations should be moved there as "explorations" etc.