Everyone knows that bar about 3 individuals. I would also ban the Capslock key and the bold and underline functions.Originally Posted by Nellie
Everyone knows that bar about 3 individuals. I would also ban the Capslock key and the bold and underline functions.
I did wonder earlier about whether people should be told that they each have a monthly cut-and-paste allowance, and that once they go over it any more cutting and pasting would be removed. However that seemed churlish, and also a lot of work for those managing this place. So, no .. and yes Jon, there are very few indulging in the cut-and-paste steeplechase. Thankfully we've seen little bolding and underlining here.
I think the issue is one of the effectiveness of a thread to hold a discussion within the general parameters of that set by originating poster. I absolutely agree that there should be no special censorship or moderation to permanently filter out individuals or opinions contrary to that perceived as the current norm.
As for the science surrounding honeybee morphology and nurture it appears to attract some fairly entrenched views which could do with being discussed in a manner accessible to the majority of beekeepers. My thoughts are that a thread started on say ‘the affect of Neonicotinoid use in agriculture on honeybees health’ could be discussed without wading through a thread embedded with the horrors of the Third Reich, eugenics, mass sterilisation and the threat to civilisation by global corporations. Albeit if a thread was started on the affect corporate monopolies have had on sustainable food production, agriculture… I would be glad to enter into that debate also.
My thoughts were initially that a thread discussing a fairly tight scientific topic could be held on track to until it came to a natural conclusion (or not as the case may be) in relation to the original post. That might require a post which is clearly straying into territory well outwith the thread could be moved to a more appropriate area.
It might take sometime to bed-in but may attract a wider more participative audience if we could evidence a more focussed, perhaps more supportive, forum to discuss the more technical and scientific aspects of beekeeping. This might also assist with Gavin’s thoughts on using the threads to inform the SBK and outside publications. How to summarise and present ‘Thread of the Month’ may prove difficult but seems entirely doable and in line with moves to modernise the SBK.
Perhaps a couple of scientific threads could be raised for a trial period to gauge whether the concept could work in principle? Or how about you invite an acknowledged ‘expert’ to start a thread off in his/hers' particular field for us to discuss jointly. I attended an association meeting in which an experienced and well travelled scientist seemed to hint we were overrating honeybee contribution to pollination across the globe; that would be an interesting thread.
I’m comfortable with whatever you decide; I have no desire to inhibit the more ardent posters rather hive off their more colourful thoughts to an area best suited to drama and hyperbole.
The challenge is, how do we reach that point? And is that what Gavin is trying to reach? Has the mere mention of the term Neonicotinoid, much like "drugs" has in mainstream debate, doomed any subsequent discussion to a shouting match over ideals and bugger the science?
I'm still torn, simply because it's an avenue of abuse. I like the sentiment, just not how it would have to be applied.My thoughts were initially that a thread discussing a fairly tight scientific topic could be held on track to until it came to a natural conclusion (or not as the case may be) in relation to the original post. That might require a post which is clearly straying into territory well outwith the thread could be moved to a more appropriate area.
It might take sometime to bed-in but may attract a wider more participative audience if we could evidence a more focussed, perhaps more supportive, forum to discuss the more technical and scientific aspects of beekeeping. This might also assist with Gavin’s thoughts on using the threads to inform the SBK and outside publications. How to summarise and present ‘Thread of the Month’ may prove difficult but seems entirely doable and in line with moves to modernise the SBK.
I love this idea. The only downside I can see is that the expert who started the thread might not be available to answer questions on it.Perhaps a couple of scientific threads could be raised for a trial period to gauge whether the concept could work in principle? Or how about you invite an acknowledged ‘expert’ to start a thread off in his/hers' particular field for us to discuss jointly. I attended an association meeting in which an experienced and well travelled scientist seemed to hint we were overrating honeybee contribution to pollination across the globe; that would be an interesting thread.
Dammit, I broke my wouldn't reply thing; didn't I?
Eric,
I believe an internet forum hosted by a body such as the SBA which seeks to represent our interests nationally and internationally should try to ensure it promotes the best interests of all the membership. That in my eyes doesn’t give any one carte blanche to call people liars or demean their professional integrity. This isn’t pointed at you, I mean anybody.
While the majority of the threads have assisted me greatly in starting off my beekeeping career there are some posts that I have found falling far short of that I would expect on the SBA site. These posts generally relate to the environmental (including manmade) factors affecting honeybee morphology. While I’m willing to accept internet anonymity can at times allow language to be used which otherwise wouldn’t be tolerated in open discussion, it shouldn’t be seen as a right. Neither should it be seen as abuse to maintain standards of ‘debating’ etiquette between members.
If this sounds as if I want to suck the spontaneity and fun out of a forum packed with excellent advice and banter that’s absolutely not the case.
In that vein surely it would be a good idea to try and synthesis the wealth of knowledge and experience that you and others have into a number of simple to follow, informative and perhaps academically robust threads? If that means tempering any hostile and irrelevant comments in one small area of the forum, is that so wrong?
I’ll leave it at that and hope a consensus can be reached fairly quickly to take us forward into a new year of beekeeping.
Admin note: Eric posted above here but the effect was to disrupt the focus of the thread back to his obsession with corporate agricultural power. Or maybe agricultural corporate power. Alex's reply was relevant to the topic, so it stays. Other responses to Eric can be found in the 'Environmental' section. I've had to open his 'Monsanto' thread to find a home for these latest rants. The place of these posts may change again, as I think it is time we had a ranter's corner where all such contributions can be put.
Last edited by gavin; 30-01-2011 at 08:35 PM.
Oh no you're not
Folks
This thread is for discussing ways of making the forum a better place by providing space for rational debate on certain topics. Any post which mentions Monsanto or GM, or is a direct response to that, is now joining Eric's previous thread on the topic.
I rather like the idea of creating an explicit 'ranter's corner' so that all such posts can go there, leaving the 'Environmental' area for reasoned debate rather than the more hysterical stuff and the criticism of me.
Maybe I'll post more on this later - I'm cooking!
Gavin
Eric, this thread is titled "possible forum changes". You have been going on about OGM's for a few posts now. In any other forum, this would be called going off topic. Going off topic is what this is all about. You are of course free to think and say what you like. About the topic of the thread . It's not what your idea is that matters, it's where you stick it.
Oops. Now I'm gonna be accused of being cloned
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks