# A 'serious' Stuff and Bother



## Ithrynluin

Should the current Stuff and Bother be split into two sub sections, one serious and the other more lighthearted? 

Do you feel the need to do this? Why (not)?


----------



## Celebthôl

I dont mind either way, tho it would clutter up things more, and also I dont know if Elvis is alive, ya shouldnt have made that a double barrelled question really


----------



## Elbereth

It certainly wouldn't hurt to separate it...but I don't see why we need to. Stuff and Bother whether serious or not...turns to spam regardless of the tone of the subject. One may look at one to be more useful then the rest..but really that is all a matter of opinion...because serious and non-serious is all essential to keeping things fun around here. Might as well make it simple and keep it all in one place. But if it was separated, I'm sure we could surely live with that too. So basically, I think that is my long-winded way of saying, I really don't care what you choose.


----------



## Aulë

What would be the definition of a 'serious' S&B thread, and when does a thread become 'lighthearted'?
I think it would just make things complicated, and trigger another 'GoP/GoR saga' where the serious non-Tolkien threads get people all worked up.

(Why do I get the feeling that 80% or more of the Serious S&B threads will end up being political or religious?  )


----------



## Ithrynluin

As far as I see, the best reason for splitting it up would be the following:

Stuff and Bother packs a lot of action and a plethora of new threads is punched out every day. This often results in many people missing threads they would otherwise participate in, but they don't see them because they slip down the page too quickly. Which means that some threads (especially more serious ones that actually consist of discussion) don't get as much response as they 'should'. This would also make things easier to find both for the members and the mods.

But I do see your point Aulë. I certainly wouldn't want opening a serious S&B to trigger people to make dozens of political and religious threads which would transform this section into another version of the GoP/R. But would this really happen? WM has not banned discussions of this sort, he just did not wish to encourage them by giving them a place to 'roost' in. There have been no discussions of that kind in S&B since then. Could the word 'serious' next to Stuff and Bother really make such a radical difference?

On another note, sometimes it would be rather difficult to say what is serious and what is lighthearted.

Just a suggestion to ponder about.


----------



## Gothmog

One possible way of working a "Serious" S&B would be that no thread is to be started in it. A thread would have to be started in "normal" S&B and then only moved into it by request or if a Mod or Admin think it should be in "Serious".

This would be more work for Mods but not too much I think.

What thoughts on this?


----------



## HLGStrider

I think the main purpose of Serious Stuff and Bother would be the religious and political threads. . .there could also be literature, philosophy, history, cultural discussions, and anything else like that. That was why I originally suggested doing something like this when the original GoR idea was submitted. I thought it would be fun to have a place where we COULD discuss religion without it getting lost in the silliness of Stuff and Bother but where it wouldn't have the stigma that a lot of people seem to put on such a forum. The GoR was doomed from the start because people didn't expect themselves or others to be polite in it. 

Anyway, it would be nice to be able to have these discussions again. 

The religious threads that predated the GoR were generally started in Stuff and Bother but moved to GoP before we could see how they would fair in there (other than a few general ones that were accidentally started, such as the Jesus Freaks thread).

I don't think the subject so much as how it is being handled is what will designate a serious thread. Any thread can start serious and be taken down the loony road. I think if you start a serious thread in a serious section it would be less likely to be taken down the road.

I mean, if you start a thread and want a good discussion on books or movies in Stuff and bother you will get some good responses. You will also get "MY FAVORITE BOOK (OUTSIDE LOTR'S OF COURSE) IS HARRY POTTER AND THE SOMETHING OR OTHER! HARRY POTTER ROCKS!" spelled out in Chatspeak (I'm not picking on Potter fans, that's just the first book that came to mind. . .though I can't see any Tolstoy fans doing that). In return someone will post "Harry Potter is pants" and then all heck breaks loose. . .you get the general idea.

Anyway, I think we can trust some of our members to come up with good ideas on our own. I think, rather than Goth's idea of having threads moved in, it would be a better policy to have threads moved out once they get "silly." By silly I don't mean some good natured humor (If we're having a discussion on literature and somone posts making fun of a book on someone's list it's not an "offense." By silly I mean spammy.).

It could be very well done.


----------



## Lantarion

Eeexactly what Elgee said! 
It would be really fabulous to have a place where the members could talk about more serious or important things (I really like how Elgee brought up literature, that would be sweet), but having it more focused and centralized. The GoR and GoP were both a) too spread out and b) too dedicated in the sense that they had their very own guilds. With the Serious Stuff and Bother (must...make up.. better..name!!), _all_ serious non-Tolkien topics would be in one place, not just religion and politics. 

I feel that TTF has an especially strong community and sense of unity, and that though we do not all know one another personally, we have been able to establish a connection between each other that, I feel, is so poignant that it makes me all soft and fuzzy inside. 
So I think that this SS&B is the next step in the evolution of TTF (thuogh perhaps we should go no further than that).


----------



## Turin

I don't really care either way, as long as we're still able to start pointless nonsense threads in S&B .


----------



## Gothmog

> Anyway, I think we can trust some of our members to come up with good ideas on our own. I think, rather than Goth's idea of having threads moved in, it would be a better policy to have threads moved out once they get "silly."


 This too would work. I gave my idea with the hope that others would bring their ideas to the thread about this.  I am glad to see that at least one is giving it some "Serious" Thought 

I think that a Serious S&B by whatever name could be a good thing.


----------



## HLGStrider

Dang. . .Lanty said what I said better than I said it. . .He isn't supposed to do that. I'm the writer! Not him. . .How am I going to get published if he keeps upstaging me?



Anyway, as usual most of the forum doesn't seem to care. . .


----------



## Lantarion

> _Originally posted by HLGStrider_
> Anyway, as usual most of the forum doesn't seem to care. . .


. . . or does not want SS&B at all! Now why wouldn't anybody want a section like that? I certainly see to downsides to it.. 
But the 'I don't care' votes can be added to the 'Yes' votes.. So we're in the lead! Muaha.

*Sneaks off to think of more ways of upstaging Elgee*


----------



## celebdraug

No don't! I'm a little new here and I am having some trouble finding some of the threads already! Don't make it too complicated!


----------



## Aulë

> _Originally posted by Lantarion _
> *. . . or does not want SS&B at all! Now why wouldn't anybody want a section like that? I certainly see to downsides to it..
> But the 'I don't care' votes can be added to the 'Yes' votes.. So we're in the lead! Muaha.
> 
> *Sneaks off to think of more ways of upstaging Elgee*
> *



There are three reasons why people don't want it (that I know of):

1/ Too complicated.

2/ It may mutate into a forum resembling the GoP and GoR. The majority of the threads will probably be related to religion or politics.

3/ It would encourage non-Tolkien discussion.


And why would we consider the 'I don't care' votes to be 'Yes'? That is just stupid logic. If they wanted it, they would have voted 'Yes'.
Therefore, the 'No' votes are the currant majority.


----------



## HLGStrider

> No don't! I'm a little new here and I am having some trouble finding some of the threads already! Don't make it too complicated!



I don't see how one more forum would do this. Our current layout is bulky, but it is still pretty obvious where to find certain things. The forums say what they talk about and you go there to talk about those things.



> 2/ It may mutate into a forum resembling the GoP and GoR. The majority of the threads will probably be related to religion or politics.



Most people want a place to talk about religion and politics. It was tied when we wanted a guild of religion, so that means that at least half the forum members wanted a guild of religion (I still have that nice, long list of GoR supporters that I never got the chance to post because WM made an executive decision, making the list rather moot). Guild of Politics was also popular.



> 3/ It would encourage non-Tolkien discussion.



Only as much as the non-serious stuff and bother does. . .and this would encourage good non-Tolkien. I suppose good non-Tolkien is more of a danger to taking over than bad non-Tolkien, but if the goal is Tolkien with no Non-Tolkien than having stuff and bother all together is just overkill.


A reason not to seperate which I see as a reason to seperate:




> It certainly wouldn't hurt to separate it...but I don't see why we need to. Stuff and Bother whether serious or not...turns to spam regardless of the tone of the subject.



EXACTLY. Stuff and Bother turns to spam. No matter what subject gets started in there it eventually turns to spam. I think a serious stuff and bother would save us from this.

Aule's reasoning is simply that it would allow for a GoR/GoP compromise when he just wants no R or P. 

No one else has really given any reasons not to have it, if you disreguard the complexity issue which I think is a rather small point.


----------



## Gandalf White

> _Originally posted by Aulë _
> *And why would we consider the 'I don't care' votes to be 'Yes'? That is just stupid logic. If they wanted it, they would have voted 'Yes'.
> Therefore, the 'No' votes are the currant majority. *



I certainly hope that this was posted when 'No' was winning, as opposed to the tie we have now. Otherwise, this is some seriously flawed logic.  

If the mods are willing to do the work, I'm all for it.


----------



## Aulë

When I wrote that post, the 'No' option had 5 votes, and the 'Yes' and 'I don't care' options had 3 votes each.


----------



## Arvedui

Before I vote, I want you to explain to me, like I'm a six-year old, what exactly belongs in a _Serious Stuff & Bother -_ section. What is the difference between that and other _Stuff & Bother?_

Until now, I have seen very little of what is supposed to go in there, except from what used to be GoR and GoP, and maybe some books other than Tolkien.


----------



## Lantarion

Aulë of course 'Yes' and 'Don't care' are different. I assumed that the difference was so obvious that I could venture a small joke. 
But thank you for calling my logic stupid, that's the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me. 

Arvedui, the difference with SS&B and the GoR/P would be that now _all_ non-Tolkien discussions would be in one place, and would therefore be easier to moderate. Also, while it is obvious that religion and politics are the two most common 'serious' non-Tolkien topics (also the most broad! ), I would personally not like to see these as a majority of the topics, as we have all seen what they can become. They are always interesting to discuss, but perhaps people could use some prudence when choosing a topic which they know is potentially especially explosive. 

I am personally interested in the creation of SS&B because I don't see TTF as being so stiff and over-proffessional that it would stick to only Tolkien-related serious topics. But, of cours,e that should _always_ remain the main prority of this forum.


----------



## HLGStrider

I think that the following would be included:

Philosophy
Religion
Politics
Literature
Discussions on movies that are not held in a flippant, spam like way
Discussion on cultures not held in a flippant spam like way (people sharing things about where they live and how they live).

I think some threads currently in MA would go very well in SSB. The Biography thread, the Prayer Request Thread, the Birthday Thread (The Birthday thread being a possible exception. I've never looked to see what people do in there, and it is more of an announcement than a discussion.).

A lot of the threads that sprang up in the GoR during its existance were more on general philsophy, such as any questioning whether or not there is absolute truth.

A thread discussion memberships feelings on events can also be included.

As I said previously, not the subject but the tenor of the discussion will be the final count. I think we can all tell when I thread starts to get ridiculous. How many threads that start as announcements in MA end up being Stuff and Bothered? I've seen this happen a few times. Obviously, we use some sort of standard in that.

Also, if you'll remember the TTF year book thread was moved from Stuff and Bother to Member Announcements when judged to be of great value to the forum. Again, someone made a value judgement.

A good way for threads to be placed in SB or SSB would be by membership calls. A statement such as "This is a great thread (not meaning popular or funny, but actually involving thinking). Let's move it to SSB." or "This is a bit off topic or silly or lighthearted. Lets' move it it SB."

Some things will be obvious. Some will be more boarderlined.

One suggestion: My SSB post count and SB no-count. That way you can use spamming as an excuse (if you need one) to move a popular thread out of SSB when it gets over posting into off topic. It will also discourage just random posting in SSB. . .and for those who like post counts not to go down, it will put pressure on members not to let their SSB thread deteriorate so they lose those posts to SB.


----------



## Snaga

Why not call it 'Angry Stuff & Bother' or 'Rude Stuff and Bother' or perhaps 'Pompous and Opinionated Stuff and Bother'?

I like this discusssion!


> Most people want a place to talk about religion and politics.


but


> There have been no discussions of that kind in S&B since then.


 so of course we need to have this because


> the main purpose of Serious Stuff and Bother would be the religious and political threads


 even though


> WM has not banned discussions of this sort, he just did not wish to encourage them by giving them a place to 'roost' in.


 The conclusion: lets give them a place to 'roost' in!! Yay!!!

This is great! I can go back to being the sole source of trouble on the forum, getting out of hand and being generally obnoxious in the company of the oh-so-very-patient forum saints! Woo-hoo!!


----------



## HLGStrider

It was posts with that sort of sarcasm that did get the GoR into trouble, if that's what you're trying to prove.

And there were plenty of good threads on religion in there. 



> Most people want a place to talk about religion and politics.



True. That's why we had the GoP in the first place and why we eventually decided to have a GoR. . .and why the C9 originally suggested the Serious Stuff and Bother (under a different name) idea. I think this is very true.



> There have been no discussions of that kind in S&B since then.



Obviously also true. Stuff and Bother doesn't encourage intelligent discussion. It never has. It never will. Religion threads that started in Stuff and Bother had a WORSE track record than those started in GoR even if they weren't controversial. Take the Jesus' Freaks thread. A member just started it saying, "Are there any other Jesus freaks out there?" Basic idea was to see if anyone else was as hyped up about their love for God and Jesus as this person was. The general tone of the discussion at this point was similar to a person excited about their favorite band. And within one page of nothing controversial being said, somebody had posted an offensive statement about Jesus Freaks and Bible Thumpers being annoying. . .just out of the blue. Stuff and Bother seemed to encourage this (of course, that member didn't have or never continued to have an exemplary track record). Stuff and Bother encourages inconsiderate posting without much thought. There is the life span of threads in there combined with the fact that intelligent posters sometimes avoid it on purpose.



> WM has not banned discussions of this sort, he just did not wish to encourage them by giving them a place to 'roost' in.



I'd add a qualifier, "A LABELED place for them to roost in." A few of the early opponents of the Guild just didn't want it because they thought the label would attract controversy. I think they were possibly right. Also, I think some people just don't like the word religion. . .or the word politics to a lesser extent.




> The conclusion: lets give them a place to 'roost' in!! Yay!!!



Which I think is a very good conclusion. Let's look at the points in your quotes:

Point A: People want these discussions
Point B: These discussions don't fit well in stuff and bother (unless you have a better reason for why they just don't happen there)
Point C: The Webmaster was sick of the controversy over the GoR and GoP.
Point D: In serious stuff and bother these threads can exist without the controversy of GoR and GoP.

Thanks, Snaga. You just gave a great arguement in favor of Serious Stuff and Bother. 
With a little tweaking. 



Anyway, something I thought of while offline:

Serious Stuff and Bother can be looked at sort of as a reverse flotsam and Jetsam.

Truthfully, Stuff and Bother has always been a flotsam and jetsam to me. If a thread is in there it has a limited period of time to exist and isn't really to be taken that seriously. The only difference is the period of time. 

As I understand it, a thread can be appealed out of Flotsam and Jetsam to rise a level higher and remain in Stuff and Bother (I'm getting this from the post by Tal in one Flotsamed thread, "Can you give me a good reason for keeping this?" If we had given a good reason she, presumably, would have kept it). 

Why not have another level?

You have a choice to start your thread in it, but if it is in it it must live up to the standards of it. 

Another option, an obvious one, is to just hold Stuff and Bother to a higher standard, but then we'd lose the ridiculousness that people like.


----------



## Arvedui

So what you want is a place for general talk about the State of the World Outside the Works of JRR Tolkien, through claiming that S&B (or B&S as I always have called it) is automatically filled with nonsense?
But perhaps we could instead prohibit nonsense threads in S&B, and only allow Serious Topics?

Yes, I enjoy a good political debate every now and then. But I have also seen what may come from it. Remember the noise only this spring? Remember how all of a sudden three moderators left their positions? Remember the few members who spent most of their time as missionaries instead of discussing Religion with an open mind?

I do.

If people could remember that 'minds are like parachutes; they only function when they are open,' then such discussions could be to the benefit of the community. So far I have seen that it takes only a few with the opposite way of thinking to bring trouble and unrest to the Forum in general.

snaga had some good points, and so far I am leaning in his direction. But I haven't voted yet


----------



## Walter

Now this sounds as if SS&B would mean GoR and GoP are sneaked in through the backdoor, hence I don't like the idea much. 

Only in connection with Gothmog's suggestion it would make some sense to me, and even in this case, only when the mods are carefully considering what to move there and what not (and thus make sure that this section doesn't become a new playground for the wannabe missionaries and politicians)...

Though, on a second thought, Arvedui's idea of generally prohibiting the nonsense threads has also a lot of appeal...


----------



## Lantarion

> Now this sounds as if SS&B would mean GoR and GoP are sneaked in through the backdoor, hence I don't like the idea much.


Ah, well the answer to that little dislike of yours is for WM to completely ban all religious and political discussion under threat of heavy Warning Points/Banning. On second thought, why not ban all non-Tolkien related topics! 
Now the way I had seen SS&B originally was a sort of non-Tolkien 'Annals of the Eldanyárë', where philosophy would have been the main topic of discussion: it is a huge area of discussion, and I think a lot of people would be interested in it. Well, at least I would assume so because of the generally high level of interaction and discourse aong members, but so far very, very few people have voted at all, seeing as how there are well over 2000 people at TTF.

And Arvedui, though basically your idea is good, I think it would do much more damage in the end than good; Stuff and Bother is a balance for all the great, serious and contemplative or thought-provoking threads out there, and if we were to abolish the funny, outrageous and fun threads in S&B I wouls think that the forum as a whole would suffer.

As I said before, I believe that this would be the next and final step in the evolution of TTF in terms of additional sub-fora; and I believe that if this is carried out it would either a) be beneficial to the forum as a whole, and it would be kept; or b) it would be detrimental, and it would be very properly dismantled.
I am not advocating non-Tolkien discussion at TTF with this in the sense that I would necessarily like to see much more of it; I am in fact advocating philosophical and deeper discussion, though out of the realm of Tolkien's works, still among the membership of TTF. If the votes stay as they are now (majority of 'No'), I will have no objection for this endeavour from not happening. But I would much rather see it happen, see how it goes, and then decide, instead of relying on assumptions and predictions.


----------



## Snaga

> _Originally posted by HLGStrider _
> *It was posts with that sort of sarcasm that did get the GoR into trouble, if that's what you're trying to prove.
> 
> ...
> 
> Thanks, Snaga. You just gave a great arguement in favor of Serious Stuff and Bother.
> With a little tweaking.  *


 Thank's Elgee its that standard of dishonest debating that did get GoR into trouble, if that's what you're trying to prove.

The fact that noone has posted such threads since we stopped giving them their roost suggests that:
(1) Having their own 'roost' does indeed encourage what would otherwise not normally occur
(2) There is not an overwhelming demand for such discussion.

You CLAIM most people want to debate these topics, but noone is posting threads. To me, it is very apparent that the atmosphere has improved immensely since those guilds went, and it would be highly foolish to recreate them.


----------



## HLGStrider

> Remember the few members who spent most of their time as missionaries instead of discussing Religion with an open mind?



I don't remember this. Occasionally you get the, "I hope you realize how much God loves you and change your mind." but not in most of the debate threads.



> Though, on a second thought, Arvedui's idea of generally prohibiting the nonsense threads has also a lot of appeal...



Not to the general populace.



> Thank's Elgee its that standard of dishonest debating that did get GoR into trouble, if that's what you're trying to prove.



Dishonest debating didn't get the GoR into trouble. Cut and run attacks by people who would rather say someone was cute in a dumb way than debate did.  I think you just gave another example of that.



> You CLAIM most people want to debate these topics, but noone is posting threads.



I think because we scared them to death by archiving all their threads. 

Think about it? We had a thread with well over 20 pages debating Communism in GoP. Would we really want to open another debate on this?

Think about LotR's section. What do we do when someone brings up a thread asking what Tom Bombadil was? Do we start arguing it all over again? No, we give them a link to a thread on Bombadil. Then, if they want they can add their piece to that. I feel the same way. There was, before the close, another thread started about Comm. in GoP. I begged them to combine it with the old one because I did NOT want to rehash everything I said in the old one.

Same goes with the thread on absolute truth. A subject that will come up a thousand times. We had a good thread on that. Why start another one? Well, because the old one was archived. . .

After the old threads were archived (for a short time I really believed the whole topic was forbidden), I did think of a few GoP/R threads to start. . .however, I didn't wish to do so in stuff and bother. I did think of things to say on thread that had already been started in GoR after they were archived, but it seemed silly starting a thread to reply to an archived thread.

etc.



> Now this sounds as if SS&B would mean GoR and GoP are sneaked in through the backdoor, hence I don't like the idea much.



Originally the problem with GoR and GoP was stated that they let things in through the front door, being labeled in big letters on the main page. People pointed out truthfully that we already had GoR by the back door with about a dozen R threads scattered about. Now those threads are archived. . .which makes it seem as if we ARE discouraging these topics even from the back window.


----------



## HLGStrider

Oh, and another point:

When I pm'ed around for GoR supporters, I got at least three responders who said, "I think the serious stuff and bother idea that is being thrown around is much better." These included the now Defunct Anamatar and Dain Ironfoot I. 

Did I use defunct correctly?


----------



## Arvedui

> _Originally posted by HLGStrider _
> *I don't remember this. Occasionally you get the, "I hope you realize how much God loves you and change your mind." but not in most of the debate threads.
> *


 I didn't really want to post names, but does the name Jesse ring a ball, Elgee?
Seen him around since the GoR closed?
Or perhaps you didn't notice him in the first place? But I did. And also quite a few others. That is exactly why I don't want any religion-guild reopened. Only one such person is too many, IMO.

Ah, the 'Communism'-thread!
A splendid example on what a GoP could accomplish.
Do you remember all the trouble that originated from that thread? Because some members had a problem with one person who claimed to be a communist, and therefore lost their ability to be objective against this person, even in other threads.

I have been thinking rather much about this topic, and have used a few days before I voted. I came to the conclusion that although a lot of trouble arose from such threads, I want the philosophical/political threads back. Mainly because I think that they are an important part of making TTF the community it was. Not only a bulletin board about Tolkien, but a real community.
I still wish that religious topics was to remain a non-starter. If it is possible to distinguish between those, then I would be a happy man.
To bring about that feeling of community, we also need the lighter matters, therefore, my suggestion on removal of nonsensical threads was not meant to be taken as a serious suggestion.

Just a final note: so far 25 members have voted, out of more than 1700. So could this thread really decide if a Serious S&B is to be started?


----------



## HLGStrider

I also think it is funny that example because I thought your last post in it was funny. . .about the posters not being able to see the other people as a little bit right. If you'd read over that thread you'd find people like Gloer, who I know to be a fan of market socialism, debating against communism. We had plenty of people in between the two extremes (HT and communism and Eriol and myself as libertarians). Djeoji was against communism. He's no libertarian. . .etc. Only a few times in that thread did people sling mud. I think that the thread's point was to debate against one extreme ideal (total socialism). It was actually an excellent thread.

I think that Communist was used only as a name in that debate which was based mainly around patriotism and the war debates, if I'm not mistaken, not on the Communism idea, for at the time I had been debating Cir on another thread about why socialism was a bad idea when he considered moderate socialism to be a good idea.

I'm actually making the same pm rounds I did to make my gor list.

This is the form letter I'm sending out:

Click Here 
Last time I pm'ed you it was about the GoR. I asked to put you on a list of supporters, if you'll remember. I'm afraid we lost that battle.
Anyway, I wanted to call your attention to another forum debate. I'm truly in favor of this, but I'm not trying to persuade you. I just want you to vote how you feel. . .and hope you feel as I do. 
Check it out!

Of course, that is only going to help my side. I don't mind if the other side does the same. I also started a sublte thread in Stuff and Bother to increase general interest in Entmoot. I really believe a lot of people simply don't read this section.

Ah. . .Jesse. . .well, I also happen to know a little bit about Jesse, and I know that he wasn't involved in THAT many guild of religion threads. More than some, but less than others. I also know the reasons Jesse quit the forum (if you'll remember he almost quit several times before the GoR was founded).

Points on Jesse:

A. Was originally on forum as a Christian. Was against the GoR.
B. Became an atheist. Decided to be for the GoR so he could prove atheism was better.
C. Became a Christian again. Quit the forum because it was bad for him.
D. Got back on the forum deciding it really wasn't bad for him
E. Pm'ed me, and probably others, saying he was quitting the forum again due to life problems and wanted our addresses.
F. Hung around for awhile longer posting in GoR.
G. Finally left.

I think that's a pretty accurate record of Jesse. He has had a hard life, which he can pm you about if he sees this. He happens to be troubled in some areas. He also happened to have joined the forum in what was a tumultuous time in his life (hence the religion switching. I left out the native american religion and Ba'hai stages).


----------



## Flame of Anor

What about alternatives? Instead of splitting up the "Stuff and Bother" thread why not create a part of the forum where totally non-Tolkien threads may take place. I believe it was on the first page of this thread that someone said that we could just put all the threads in one forum and if they turn out to be serious we could them move them to the selected place. I think this would just complicate things...ppl would have to go and find the thread all over again.

Instead of having just one option i think there should be different avenues to go down. I say leave S&B as it is and then create a new place where non-Tolkien discussions can take place.

-Flame


----------



## Walter

> _Originally posted by Lantarion _
> Ah, well the answer to that little dislike of yours is for WM to completely ban all religious and political discussion under threat of heavy Warning Points/Banning. On second thought, why not ban all non-Tolkien related topics!


 Correct me if I'm wrong, Lanti, but as far as I'm aware, political and religious topics are restricted to those that are Tolkien-related in a way (as per WM's decision), which is - IMHO - the best possible solution for handling these issues...

From a few posts in this thread I gather that some of our potential missionaries are already eagerly awaiting a new playground and opening it up in form of a SS&B will bring back a few of these old quarrels.

On the other hand, since the GoR and Gop have been shut down - and as Arvedui has stated - the climate has improved a lot and furthermore there have been started some high quality Tolkien-related discussions in several sections.


----------



## Snaga

> _Originally posted by HLGStrider _
> *Oh, and another point:
> 
> When I pm'ed around for GoR supporters, I got at least three responders who said, "I think the serious stuff and bother idea that is being thrown around is much better." These included the now Defunct Anamatar and Dain Ironfoot I.
> 
> Did I use defunct correctly? *


 You PM'ed everyone you could possibly think of who would want this, and you got 'at least' [read: exactly] three people saying yes, and one has left TTF?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Arvedui says:


> Remember the few members who spent most of their time as missionaries instead of discussing Religion with an open mind?


and you reply


> I don't remember this.


 Here's a way to refresh your memory. Do a search under the name "HLGStrider".


----------



## Lantarion

Snaga I would really watch that attitude if I were you. This is a difficult matter to resolve, and your poking Elgee in the ribs all the time is not helping in the least. You have had justified points, which need consideration, but I'm warning you now: stop subtly insulting people who disagree with you.

Arvedui, I understand your concern about the 'missionary-types' returning; but as such proselytizing is not allowed on TTF, it would (or at least should) have the automatic effect of banning the member who practices it. And if there is no such in-built system, the moderators will surely ban him, or suspend him for a while, and warn him to never return unless they stop.

Yes Walter, you're right.  What I meant was that to ban such discussions outright would be severely limiting our freedom on the forum; and yes, I understand that it might be considered to be a required limitation (i.e. in order to amp up Tolkien discussion more), but I believe that at the very least this proposed section deserves a trial period. It would _NOT_ be focused in any way on religion or politics (and snaga, in case you're waiting to quote me in this thread saying anything different, accept the fact that I have changed my mind), or on any other non-Tolkien field. It would be a place where people can talk about important issues, opinions and thoughts in general (at the same time not pertaining directly to Tolkien).
And as I said before, I by no means whatsoever want to dsicourage Tolkien-centred discussion! I just feel that TTf should have a stronger non-Tolkien side to it; this way the forum will not grow stagnant or repetitive and monotonous (in terms of subject matter and topics). And indeed, people are not mindless creatures who jump at every new change. People in favour of the SS&B will visit it and discuss matters there. People who aren't, won't! It is up to the members where they spend most of their time at TTF, and simply opening up a new option will do their free will no harm IMO.

Elgee, I'm afraid I disagree with your idea abuot always referring new questions to existing threads on the subject. True, it would be more efficient, but merging similar threads has the same effect. As Celebthôl well argued in another thread, we should not just automatically tell people to stuff it and find the same thread somewhere else (this being, of course, a radical exaggeration). And it has also been discussed in the Moderators' Forum, pertaining to Arvedui's painstaking and diligent link-thread project; when topics arise, they should be discussed in that new thread. references can be made to existing threads on the subject, IMO, but peoples' thoughts and opinions change over time (as I myself have witnessed while looking through some very old threads); we should not change TTF into a Tolkien encyclopedia, where every question has a thread which answers it. Discussion inspires new thoughts in people, and is the essence of the very concept of an internet discussion forum. 


So where have we progressed to in this thread? It still seems that the majority has voted 'No', and yet not everybody who has voted has even commented on their decision here! I believe Elgee's little newsletter should atract attention to this thread and gain peoples' interest and votes, by which we will arrive at a final decision.


----------



## Snaga

Do I get further warning points if I point out that Elgee's "newletter" is a little campaign to get her own way? So you are losing the poll now, so you want to wait until the vote changes before making the decision.... I'll risk further points and just say that. 

Sorry about my attitude. I am, as always, willing to accept total and complete responsibility for all the evil on the forum.


----------



## Confusticated

Snaga... HLG is the forum's little angel, and furthermore sics pet mods on folks who are not nice to her... or so said her deep thoughts awhile back. One might get in more trouble for remarks to/about her than they could for making the same comment about another member. Of course you probably know this so you had an 'attitude' knowing your risk. 

I'm pretty neutral about the S&B issue... though am a little more towards the side of keeping it as is only because I don't quite see the need to change it. Haven't voted yet... will probably do so soon.


----------



## Beleg

Just to clarify, I didn't say 'yes'. I was 'indifferent' and Elgee mistakenly thought me of someone else. 

Oh and I can't see anything in creating a new SS&B. 
You folks banned Politics and Religion, deleted the Guilds, not withstanding the fact that many if not most recent threads in GOP were social or scientific threads with serious subject matter. 



Yes, Walter is right, it's sneaking P and R through the backdoor, but IMH and Opinionated Opinion their is no use of it. 
I personally want to discuss P and R and S and P and Sci topics on TTF but feel that I can't.


----------



## Evenstar373

I think this is a GREAT idea because we need a place where we can talk about our religoin and it does not mean just Christanty it can be any religion at all I agree totoaly whith Hgl strider too


----------



## Eriol

Ah, attitudes... if I wanted to talk about attitudes I'd have plenty of material. Yet, I'm a believer in 'the record speaks for itself'. When I was charged with 'an attitude' by a member, I asked him to produce the record; I'm still waiting. 

The record speaks for itself; and so end my words on 'attitude'. I prefer arguments.

An important point is that this argument, presented by people in this thread:

"People didn't start Political or Religious discussions since the Guilds were abolished, and thus there is no popular will to discuss those things"

is erroneous. Clearly so. For Webmaster's decision was to _ban_ all religious and political discussions, at a first step. Ithrynluin tells us that a later post by WM revoked that ban, in effect stating that we are as free as we were before there was any Guild to start threads on those subjects. Perhaps Ithrynluin is right, I don't know. What I do know is that this reversal of WM's decisions was not properly publicized; I also know that _everybody_ who was following the discussion thought that WM had banned P/R discussions altogether. Friends and foes of P/R alike, as Walter's last post shows. 

So, the lack of P/R posts can't be credited to a lack of interest among the membership... unless of course there is a special sense in the word 'membership' there, a sense in which those people who stopped posting in TTF since the end of GoR (I could give plenty of names off the top of my head, and none of them 'a missionary') are not 'true members'. 

Of course, there is something quite amazing in the claim that there is little interest in these things when you look at the record  of the Forum; how many threads were opened in the GoR soon after it was opened, how many threads were opened in the GoP... in fact, people are claiming that these things are not popular, just after complaining about them and requesting that the Guilds be closed because they were _too_ popular!

There is also the matter of the 'atmosphere'. A little vague. Snaga and Walter (and to a lesser extent Arvedui) claim that the atmosphere has improved. Well, I don't think so. I think it has deteriorated beyond anything I've seen here (granted, I've been around for less time than most people in this thread). Since I strongly dislike the 'prophet of doom' stance, and I in fact hope that TTF -- whatever is decided -- prospers, I will not elaborate. But it is an opinion, and I think it is the opinion of many others with whom I've spoken. As well as the opinion of those who have stopped visiting (obviously). 

Also... is there any reason for not having a trial period, as the other ideas? We had a trial period for non-post counts, a trial period for GoR, why not a trial period for this? 

I'm quite comfortable with Arvedui's idea, of a "non-Religious Guild" . Indeed, anything is bound to be an improvement on the current 'atmosphere'; as long as it receives proper Moderator attention. We're treading a fine balance here. The pendulum is still swinging... and we're at the far end of its swing. 

In the end, WM will decide, taking into consideration all opinions (opinions!) presented here, all arguments, and aiming at the best of the Forum... as he always does. The poll results are nothing more than a curiosity; after all, Political and Religious discussions were banned without any request from the membership to that effect! Some few people didn't want the Guilds, sure, but they never (as far as I remember) clamored for the ban on all discussions altogether. Not even the most radical anti-Guild people. 

So, I wish WM better luck this time.


----------



## Aulë

> _Originally posted by snaga1 _
> *Do I get further warning points if I point out that Elgee's "newletter" is a little campaign to get her own way? So you are losing the poll now, so you want to wait until the vote changes before making the decision.... I'll risk further points and just say that. *



I know Snaga!  We can start our own little 'campaign', and ask people in the book forums who care not for politics and religion at this forum. 
And since they are the members at TTF who _matter_ (unlike the ones who spend their entire time talking about a fictional character called 'Bob'), we shall be doing the forum a service.


----------



## Snaga

Good idea Aule!

Eriol, if you think I was vague about the problem of atmosphere, I will be more specific. There are no longer the heated debates that turn into rancorous personal animosity. I see that absence as a good thing. You appear to argue that there is something bad in the current atmosphere, but I didnt catch why. Except perhaps that some people have apparently left TTF. I can only assume that if someone leaves TTF because they can no longer discuss politics and religion, they weren't here to discuss Tolkien (primarily). In which case, I wish them luck wherever else they go looking to have debates about religion and politics, but I don't think their absence hurts the forum.

Finally, if you think that people started no threads on religion or politics because they believed those topics to be banned, then maybe you have a point. Hmm.... and the atmosphere has improved.... Hey, that's a pretty good argument for the total ban!


----------



## Nimawae's hope

If the purpose of a "serious" Stuff and Bother" is to give the members a place to talk about politics and religion, then perhaps it should be separated from the light-hearted threads, just so everyone can tell the difference. But by the same token, separating would only be a convenience to those people who want to have serious conversations that are not Tolkien related. 
I certainly do not see a separation as necessary.

I personally do not usually care to speak about politics or religion when I'm on TTF. I'm a college student, and if I want that kind of conversation I find someone on campus. Occasionaly a topic might interest me, but for the most part I like the light-hearted things. After all, to me TTF is escapism: if I want to debate, I debate; if I want to goof off, I goof off. 

I haven't voted yet, because I have not totally decided what I think right now. I'm only stating my initial thoughts.


----------



## Bethelarien

I say no. I think it's completely unnecessary. Personally, I think TTF is becoming _too_ compartmentalized. Really, let's stop the madness!


----------



## Talierin

You know, I think it's really sad that people in this thread have to degenerate to personal insults to get their point of view across. And no, I'm not on elgee's side. I am against this "serious stuff and bother". All it does is bring up another can of worms that we don't need on TTF. Just look at what it's doing already, and this is just the bloody discussion for it! Elgee's campaining and Snaga and Aule's insulting shows me enough about this matter that it will just cause more problems later. Political and Religious discussion is gone from TTF, get used to it.

Furthermore, I talked to WM about it a week or so ago, and he said no. And I doubt he's changed his mind about banning non-tolkien P and R threads. Yes, you can still talk about them as they relate to Tolkien, but no non-tolkien threads.

Any further personal insults or arguments on this thread will result in it being closed.


----------



## Nimawae's hope

Exactly, Talierin! I agree that this whole issue is unnecessary and causes more problems than it's worth. That's what I thought, but I couldn't verbalise. I've seen insults on this thread that I was rather surprised by. I didn't know members disliked each other like that. It's really sad.


----------



## syongstar

hlgstrider said mostly what I wanted to say.
At www.about.com they have a biography of Tolkien that said he was a devout catholic who thought the church could be better so he wrote these novels to show people how a christian should be.The fellowship got it's name because that is what christians call a meeting.
When his mother died her parents told him he could become a prostant or be raised in an orphanage.He went to an orphanage.
so you can see how important religon was to him.Yet he's not about saying 'be this way or else"~~*~~


----------



## HLGStrider

So are P and R threads banned or not? Walter and Tal say they are. Lanty and Snaga say they are not. 

Really, we should get this clarified.



> From a few posts in this thread I gather that some of our potential missionaries are already eagerly awaiting a new playground and opening it up in form of a SS&B will bring back a few of these old quarrels.



I find this a little paranoid. I also think you guys have a freaky idea of what the word missionary means.



> You PM'ed everyone you could possibly think of who would want this, and you got 'at least' [read: exactly] three people saying yes, and one has left TTF?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!



Read what I said again. I said I pm'ed everyone I had pm'ed when I was compiling my GoR list remembering that, at the time of my GoR list, three people had said they didnt' want the GoR but they did want the SSB. 

Meaning, that I assumed the GoR people would like a crack at this as well. So far I have gotten a little bit of response from it.



> Here's a way to refresh your memory. Do a search under the name "HLGStrider".



Actually, I do this every so often. And I suggest you do it to and then post what you don't like so that we can discuss it. Really, Snags, you aren't making very founded claims today.



> Snaga I would really watch that attitude if I were you. This is a difficult matter to resolve, and your poking Elgee in the ribs all the time is not helping in the least.



So far he hasn't hurt my feelings. I'm used to him. 



> Elgee, I'm afraid I disagree with your idea abuot always referring new questions to existing threads on the subject. True, it would be more efficient, but merging similar threads has the same effect.



I know, and I don't like it either, HOWEVER, I truly don't want to give my opinion again and again on the same subject. If someone starts a new thread on Com. I'm happy to see it merged with the old one. However, I don't want to have to repeat everything I said in the old one in the new one. 



> I believe Elgee's little newsletter should atract attention to this thread and gain peoples' interest and votes, by which we will arrive at a final decision.



I hope it will.



> Do I get further warning points if I point out that Elgee's "newletter" is a little campaign to get her own way?



No, because I said it was in my post, if you'll look. Something to the effect of, "I know this is only going to increase my side, but I wouldn't mind you guys doing it to." And several of those I've pm'ed have in fact voted against me (I didn't make any bones about them being able to do so). And it isn't just my own way. . .which is something I'm hoping to prove.



> One might get in more trouble for remarks to/about her than they could for making the same comment about another member.



Por ejemplo? It is partly true I suppose, because unlike some people I don't tend to strike back, not because I'm particularly the greatest example of Christian turn the other cheek, but because I am incapable of good sarcasm. There's no point to bad sarcasm. 



> There are no longer the heated debates that turn into rancorous personal animosity.



There have been these in the movie section all the time, but for the main part they have been controlled. From what I hear of the debate section it can also get petty and a few people are upset over each other in there. I never gained rancorous personal animosity against anyone in a GoR thread. I have been tempted to in Entmoot threads.



> Hmm.... and the atmosphere has improved.... Hey, that's a pretty good argument for the total ban!



I don't feel it has. It's been dumbed down.



> Elgee's campaining and Snaga and Aule's insulting shows me enough about this matter that it will just cause more problems later.



Why can't you just tell people not to insult? And I didn't think there would be anything wrong with trying to stir up interest. I did for the GoR. I did for one or two other things. I don't want this forum to go bad because of indifference, and I see a LOT Of indifference, now adays, if that's what Snaga means by improvement in the atmosphere. I guess no one cares enough to fight.


----------



## Snaga

> I find this a little paranoid. I also think you guys have a freaky idea of what the word missionary means.


Are you calling Walter and me paranoid freaks? 



> Actually, I do this every so often. And I suggest you do it to and then post what you don't like so that we can discuss it. Really, Snags, you aren't making very founded claims today.


You know I'll get warning points if I do that. That's not very nice of you to try to provoke me again. Or should I say its amoral?

However it was nice of you to let me know I wouldnt be getting any warning points. Make sure you tell all your 'pet mods', ok?

Anyway I know I don't hurt your feelings, Elgee. You're very resilient, I would say. But sometimes I think you also miss when other people get offended.

I guess Tal, Nim and others maybe take these little altercations rather more seriously than I do.

By the way Tal, I don't think Aule insulted anyone. If he did I missed it. Remember, I'm the sole source of evil on the forum!


----------



## Confusticated

> _Originally posted by snaga1 _
> *By the way Tal, I don't think Aule insulted anyone. If he did I missed it. Remember, I'm the sole source of evil on the forum! *



How dare you to mock me? This implication that I am not the sole source... and furthmore that I am not a source whatsoever... is foolish... and a lie.


Have reported the post. 

Let the Valar of Nom's Ring  take care of it.

"Say this to Snaga, lowly orc of TTF: If Nom can not overthrow TTF at least she delays not to assail it, and sits not idle in grief. And it may be that I am more evil than thou knowest. Such hurt will I do to the forum that even the mighty in the hidden forum shall wonder to hear it. Yea, in the end they shall follow me. Farewell."


----------



## Talierin

Glad to see we can all get along so well. Thread closed until further notice.


----------



## David Pence

It seems there continues to a few members are a bit confused over the new policy concerning non Tolkien based discussion -- including political and religious topics -- on TTF.

So, for the last time, here it is.

*Non Tolkien Discussions*

TTF will not host a permanent forum or thread dedicated to the discussion of a non Tolkien based topic.

What this means is that you won't find a *Guild of Bike Riders*, or *Guild of Soft Drinks* anywhere on TTF.

What this does _not_ mean, is that non Tolkien topics are banned altogether. There are several 'off-topic'fora on TTF, where members can discuss bikes, soft drinks, and even notoriously troublesome topics like politics and religion. There simply won't be any fora dedicated to non Tolkien subjects.

Naturally, these topics fall under the rules of conduct that governs any topic deliberated on TTF.

So, how is that? Everyone understand? I certainly hope so.


----------

