# Sick Of Being Serious



## Elbereth (Oct 19, 2003)

I realize this is a Tolkien forum and "serious" tolkien discussion is expected, but COME ON PEOPLE!! Ligten up! 

Now I love Tolkien as much as the rest of you....and I probably enjoy discussing Tolkien more than the average joe....but sometimes, I want to take it easy and have fun with my Tolkien experience....and I'm sure I'm not alone here. 

I personally don't have the time or the energy to put into deep serious discussion of Tolkien on an ongoing basis. And if I want to discuss a silly Tolkien topic like, "What's your favorite Tolkien hairstyle" or "Which Hobbit could win in a drinking contest"...than damn it! I should be able to...& without having to worry about receiving criticism from the tolkien purists who believe that sort of discussions should be abolished from this forum. 

A forum is a place for all types of people, both serious and lighthearted alike. We should all feel comfortable to discuss topics without fear of being criticized. This growing tolkien snobbery that I am seeing on the forum lately has got me very concerned, because I know we're better than that. Right now, I know everyone is doing their best to try to clean up the forum and make it a better place...and as a result the tensions are high, but please let's not loose the funloving spirit and integrity that has made this forum such a wonderful place to visit year after year.


----------



## Snaga (Oct 19, 2003)

Is anyone trying to put a stop to such threads? 

I agree that there is too much snobbery though. Too often people forget that the fun posts are needed for light relief. Some people lean more to those threads than others, but they shouldnt be looked down on for that. They should be welcomed like anyone else.


----------



## Manveru (Oct 19, 2003)

That's why I'm not serious all the time... or wait, am I serious at all? (just fooling around--no harm meant).

I'm trying to be serious when (and where) it's needed (hope that you--anyone who encounter with me on the boards--feel the same way...).

_"Happy people live longer"_ they say...


----------



## Lantarion (Oct 19, 2003)

_"Happy people devote all their time to doing things which make them feel good which makes them disregard things like busses and trucks, which is why they do NOT live longer"_, they say.. 

Who's snobbish? Not me, dood, nuh-uh. 

But I believe that both serious discussion and light-heartedness have been advocated at TTF, and although there isn't all that much humour in some fora (e.g. 'The Silmarillion' ), there are many that are packed with it. It's just a good idea to separate them to some degree.

See?! This very post is an example of humour over-flowing from serious, gray places to..to.. EVERYWHERE!


----------



## Confusticated (Oct 19, 2003)

Actually a fair amount of silliness pops up in the Silmarillion serious threads.  I think it is all the better for poping up in serious threads than if it were part of a whole silly thread... but that's a matter of taste I guess.

Anyhow, I've heard a couple people who disagreed about the GoP and GoR topics being banned, talk down on silly topics... INCLUDING silly Tolkien topics. I don't think anything will change their opinion. I kind of pity people who would look down at any/every silly thread or post to the point that they think the things should not be allowed.

But for those who are serious I see no need to lighten up... as long as they don't say that silly topics should be removed they are not hurting anyone.

But I'm not sure I would use the term 'Tolkien purist' for the people who think no lighthearted topics should exist. I'm about as purist as you can get... not taking any secondary sources on Middle-earth... no matter how approved the author... EXCEPT in the case of a couple languages sources who give the page numbers so I can check the Tolkien book myself. Yet I goof off pretty often, and so do a few others like me who are very much purists. I think I'd rather say 'overly serious posters who are up tight and were too strictly toilet trained as a child'


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 19, 2003)

> Anyhow, I've heard a couple people who disagreed about the GoP and GoR topics being banned, talk down on silly topics... INCLUDING silly Tolkien topics. I don't think anything will change their opinion. I kind of pity people who would look down at any/every silly thread or post to the point that they think the things should not be allowed.



I'm probably the most in favor of the GoP and GoR and probably also one of the most ridiculous members, so I disagree with the above statement.

I think the point of the one who was made most of the statements you're probably referring to (Thorin), was trying to make this point: There is more average intelligence and depth in the GoR and GoP threads than you'll get any day in Stuff and Bother which can be a tad bit too ridiculous.

And you have to admit that there are a lot of stupid threads in Stuff and Bother. 

I think his arguements were in part to counter the idea that it was because they weren't Tolkieny that they were being banned. The threads on Soda Pop, Pizza Toppings, and the like aren't Tolkieny and really aren't all that interesting. The GoR may have been un-Tolkieny, but it was stimulating if you approached it right, which most people did.

I think Thorin's point was, "If you want the site to improve get rid of the spamming type threads. Not the interesting ones."

I'm fine with talking about Soda pop occassionally. . .


----------



## Confusticated (Oct 19, 2003)

I don't see how the reasons for why the people have done this, makes what I said untrue.

Elbereth said: "I should be able to...& without having to worry about receiving criticism from the tolkien purists who believe that sort of discussions should be abolished from this forum."

I can only recall one person who fits that description.

Anyhow... who cares what people think about silly Tolkien topics? I'm sure people thinks a lot of my stuff is silly and useless but I don't care in the slightest. Really... anyone pig-headed enough to think light-hearted topics on Tolkien need to go bye-bye is a person whose opinion I wouldn't tend to value.


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 19, 2003)

Well, I do think we could curb down on the "Who is hottest?" threads. . .which were the main ones Thorin used in his points.

I sincerely don't think Elbereth was referring to Thorin. I think she was referring to a general spirit of snobbery, which I see mostly on the anti-GoP and GoR camp talking down non-Tolkien subjects. 

I think someone needed to stand up to them with a little bit of snobbery of their own. Fighting fire with fire works surprisingly well in these situations.


----------



## Elbereth (Oct 20, 2003)

I guess I should probably explain that I did not have any one member in mind when I wrote this thread...nor did the GoP or GoR controvery have anything to do with why I wrote this topic. 

This is a general statement...and I would hope that you see it as it is...a plea for us to calm down, relax and just enjoy posting rather than beat each other up for expressing our opinions and having a good time.


----------



## DGoeij (Oct 20, 2003)

Please be gentle to peole without any sense of humour. Their distortion gives them great trouble on a daily basis and indeed their life expectancy isn't that great either.

Then again, sodd them 

To quote B. Simpson: 'Eat my shorts.'


----------



## Eriol (Oct 20, 2003)

As the much maligned Thorin would say, "Alrighty then..." 

What I find very snobbish is this premise:



> But non-Tolkien contraversy such as the GoP and GoR are unnessesary, and don't deserve a place at TTF.



Who is the speaker to say that such and such _do not deserve_ a place at TTF? Is he the Webmaster? Well, I'll address the WM case later. But the speaker is not the Webmaster. Then this sentence becomes astonishingly snob; the guy is simply telling everybody else what _deserves_ and what does not _deserve_ a place in TTF. I guess we should all ask him by PM what threads we may open and what threads should be considered "undeserving".

 x 5.

When the speaker does not even realize the snobbery in his words -- and I am very much inclined to believe that he doesn't -- then that snobbery becomes multiplied by 10. It is as if I, who don't like the Inns and never looked much at RPGs, said that "these things do not deserve a place at TTF". It is _exactly_ the same thing. 

Even the much criticized "I love/hate Legolas" threads deserve their place at TTF, folks... TTF is (or at least was  ) big enough to hold all kinds of nonsense, from "I love Legolas" to political and religious discussions... I wouldn't dare to state which is the most ridiculous. I never worried about that before, and I am pretty much convinced (from life experience  ) that worrying about what is ridiculous and what isn't is... ridiculous. 

Let me quote from Ancalagon, in an old post of his:



> Eriol, I would say to you that every thread started in the forum is valuable, whether it is related to Tolkien, Kasparov or Asimov, it should be entitled to it fair shot at seeking responses from the members. If it does not gather much interest, fair enough, that does not mean it was not worth posting.
> 
> The key point is really where it ought to be in relation to the various sections (fora) that you might decide to post it. If it does not fit in a certain section, I am sure someone will move it, but don't concern yourself too much with its value, all is valuable...all except 'Legolas is sooo hot', which should be deleted the very instant it is posted



Now, can anyone explain to me what happened between May (when Ancalagon posted that) and today to make everybody so worried about what is "deserving of a place at TTF"? Ithrynluin, in that same thread, said that "different people have different interests and therefore participate in different threads" -- has this changed so much that we must forbid discussions and dissolve guilds?

I can think of only one viable answer -- WM changed his mind. Good enough for me. But don't try to explain it with reasoned arguments, folks... you'll have a very tough job out of it.

Another example:



> As has been pointed out, a major (indeed _the_ major) factor in play relating to the removal of GoP and GoR is that they are painfully out of place on a Tolkien forum. There is no way around that, and such fora will never be validated as long as WM continues to call this place The Toklien Forum and operate it with the principles he does.



Well, I suppose then the Forum that I have known for a year, and that most of the posters in this thread have known for longer, was "painfully beset" with "invalid Forums", and that Webmaster realized just now that the GoP was -- gasp! -- a heinous break of principles. "There is no way around that" -- everybody was completely blind until a month ago, when suddenly the scales were cast out of (some) people's eyes. 

Perhaps someone can buy that. But it is still a snob sentiment -- in that it assumes that those who don't agree are not seeing what is "painfully" obvious. The snobbery is in that (some) over there; and there is some snobbery in the very notion of a "break of principles" in a place like this. While people are insulting each other in a Movie thread, the principles are ok; if people are peacefully talking about how hot is Legolas, or about the Outcasts' Chattering, or about Communism -- break of principles!!

Right now the Guild of Outcasts (at least -- I don't know about others) is under risk of dissolving because it is "un-Tolkieny". I suppose that the Guild of Outcasts is "painfully out of place", and "does not deserve its place at TTF". Why??? This is wrong beyond description.

About WM. He is, of course, the _only_ person that can say what deserves a place here and what does not; and therefore any such opinion by any other person is simply -- snob. WM's stance on this matter is very weird, in my opinion, since he stated very clearly that he would not ban political discussions and then did so on account of PM's and public complaints (the public complaints after WM's decision was announced involved no more than 5 people, I believe -- certainly less than 10. I did not count). Now, I don't know about the PM's, perhaps there were hundreds of people shouting for the closing of those guilds -- people who don't want to speak in the threads. Who knows? I don't. I know this, though:

_What about the C9?_

"Our membership representative body", or so it says in the main page. It was completely bypassed by complainants and WM. And what is more damaging, it was bypassed _and overruled_ without any consultation (that the membership, or at least I, am aware). After all, the GoR was one of the C9's "children". 

Note, I'm not saying that WM did not have the right to do what he did -- he obviously had. And so had the complainants. But the result of their actions was the complete undermining of the C9. It has no function whatsoever, now -- none. Why should I address the C9 next time I have a complaint or an idea? Their decision can be overturned without any notice... it's a waste of time. I will go directly to WM, like we did before the C9 was created.

That's why I think WM's stance was weird. If he did not want the C9, why institute it? If he wanted it, why not involve it in this business? "Oh, the C9 takes ages to decide" -- so what? A temporary ban, while the C9 was discussing the matter, would be much more reasonable. And of course WM would still have the final word. If he in fact realized the error of his ways in allowing political discussions for years, and was determined to ban them anyway, he could at least listen to the C9 position and then do what he wished. 

And by the way, I suppose that Kasparov thread which was being discussed in Anc's post should be archived... it is "painfully out of place" in a Tolkien Forum. 

I suppose DGoeij is right, and we should sodd the snobs . I don't know what that means, but it sounds good.


----------



## Aulë (Oct 20, 2003)

Eriol- if you're going to quote me like that, at least have the balls to say that it was me who said it.  GoR and GoP obviously don't belong here since Webmaster got rid of the bloody things.
Stop acting like a flamin prick, and give up abusing members behind their backs.


----------



## DGoeij (Oct 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Eriol _
> *I suppose DGoeij is right, and we should sodd the snobs . I don't know what that means, but it sounds good.
> 
> *



Technically, I'm pretty sure I made it up. I was confronted in a rpg-pc-game once, by a big bloke, suggesting that I should: "Sodd off!' in a strong cockney accent. Now, I'm pretty certain it's a way of telling someone to remove himself from at least the immediate eyesight of the one using such language. Or the removal may become more physical, as happened to my main character, who got thrown out of the club he (or I, if you will) was investigating.

And to give the snobs so accurately described by Eriol some Tolkien to chew on: 'Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.'

Even if it's only the death of a subject on an internet forum. 



> _Originally posted by Aulë _
> * GoR and GoP obviously don't belong here since Webmaster got rid of the bloody things.*



Now that's sound reasoning if I ever saw it.


----------



## Aulë (Oct 20, 2003)

Well that's the arguement that Eriol gave for why I am an apparent 'snob'. That it "doesn't matter what we say- it's what Webmaster wants that counts".
Yet he goes on to question the C9...proving that he is a damned hypocrite


----------



## Eriol (Oct 20, 2003)

Ok, I'll have the balls to say it was you who said it. Happy? And the second quote was Lantarion's. That does not mean I think you are a "flaming prick", or any other nice descriptive words, Aulë. And neither is Lantarion. I just think you are wrong.

If you get upset just because I disagree with your premise, and say I'm a flaming prick because of it... cool off, Aulë. I was NOT talking about you, I was talking about the many things I addressed in my post. The name of the poster was quite meaningless. If I ever want to bash you, I won't do it behind your back...


----------



## Eriol (Oct 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Aulë _
> *Well that's the arguement that Eriol gave for why I am an apparent 'snob'. That it "doesn't matter what we say- it's what Webmaster wants that counts".
> Yet he goes on to question the C9...proving that he is a damned hypocrite *



I may be an hypocrite, but I read the posts. I said your _opinion_ (not you -- as you noted, I did not name you) was snobbish, because it wanted to dictate what is deserving of a place or not. It is NOT because "what Webmaster wants that counts". As you will see if you read the post. 

Cool off.


----------



## DGoeij (Oct 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Aulë _
> *Well that's the arguement that Eriol gave for why I am an apparent 'snob'. That it "doesn't matter what we say- it's what Webmaster wants that counts".
> Yet he goes on to question the C9...proving that he is a damned hypocrite *



Have you read the post, or just went off like an ICBM as soon as you read one of your own statements?


----------



## Ithrynluin (Oct 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Eriol _
> *What I find very snobbish is this premise:
> 
> Who is the speaker to say that such and such do not deserve a place at TTF? Is he the Webmaster? Well, I'll address the WM case later. But the speaker is not the Webmaster. Then this sentence becomes astonishingly snob; the guy is simply telling everybody else what deserves and what does not deserve a place in TTF. *



The guy was not telling everyone and anyone 'a fact of life' or 'the truth', he was simply stating his opinion, or what he perceived as true. It is no more snobbish than you calling it snobbish, or everyone else saying what's on their mind.



> Ithrynluin, in that same thread, said that "different people have different interests and therefore participate in different threads" -- has this changed so much that we must forbid discussions and dissolve guilds?
> 
> I can think of only one viable answer -- WM changed his mind.



And that's that I'm afraid.


----------

