And why ever do you think I want you to delete your membership, Temp?

As I said above I wish everyone would stop all being so overly sensitive.

Fascinating stuff! Mass hysteria, Viz? How tempting  a mode that sounds. I suggest you cherry pick the threads that interest you and so you have missed  the cut and thrust. I could dig out a wealth of proof....unless it has been deleted by now but why bother.

This discussion began by wondering what we can do to widen the site to get more members. Opinion was asked for - and given. Some possible reasons for lowering membership and participating were suggested  and now we have tears in the male changing room with a lot of team hugging because of them. We cannot even discuss how we ought to discuss without being dismissive of  candid viewpoints. 
So here goes with a selection from the above posts about some of us - carping, sneering, trolling, out right bating, scorning, sensitive and huffy......and all is aimed at poor old  long suffering nord who is almost driven to tears by it. ... and who is greatly relieved by this sort of support. 

Not likely to attract new people any of that is it?

Clearly we cannot discuss properly. Posts keeping to wodges of knowledge and erudition larded with reference tags to read what others say is the only way. Clearly I need to go to classes to find out how to disagree without being totally crushed - or causing men to weep. I can do it in the real world but not here. my brand of humour obviously does not transpose too well.

Right , nordmann, you started this by asking questions about the site, its lack of traffic and whether there might be some value in moving it to social media. In response some people, and I notice they are all female, have expressed some hesitation and disquiet about contributing because of the nature of some of the responses they received or observed. What's the problem with that? It seems to me to be fair comment but has been greeted with ambiguous 'apologies' and what looks like less than a thoughtful, sympathetic or empathetic hearing. I know you have said before that this is not a democracy, and you are of course correct, but when some of your most loyal and insightful contributors make serious comments then the least you can do is treat those comments seriously.

I definitely don't want this place to go, I value it and all its members and am immensely grateful to you for creating it, but it behoves us all to reflect on what has been said and not just dismiss out of hand people who are truthfully expressing what they feel.

I've read your post, P, it crossed with mine. Yes!

Crossed posts with MM. Of course I am the other one along with Temps. Watch yer back Caro, you lauded us for attempting to make stands - for which even well grounded ferv noted replies to us could sometimes be stinging

No blindfolds, chums. just get on with it, do.

Wot alotta cross posts! I'm still tied to mine awaiting execution. Oh gawd - am I wearing the right hat for it?

Priscilla wrote:

I could dig out a wealth of proof

Let's see it.

There isn't sufficient evidence to convince me that nordmann should be uniquely singled out as being particularly sharp in replying to posts on threads any more or any less then any other poster. I take ferval's point, though, that with this thread Nobiles Barbariæ has made a rod for his own back (something which he probably didn't need to do) and some of the barbariæ are duly taking full advantage of the opportunity to thrash nobiles.

Nah, Viz, do your own research! I do not recall any other poster replying as 'sharply' apart from a tart snap or two but nothing untoward. Are you calling me barbarous? In what sense Ancient Greek or Res Hist modern? Oh poor, noble didums.... aren't we the awful ones? Actually this entire scenario is just as many a thread has run. We gave opinion - and in this case, upheld by several but the content of it is denied. Warning to any would be posters - 

Do not tangle with the nobles with contrary opinion.

 Don't ask for input if you don't like what might be put in.

It seems everything I say in reply to some people is interpreted by them as "sharp".

Fair enough - maybe in future I'll switch to being blunt.

Ferval, you obviously do not appreciate just how seriously I do actually take the comments being made here - all of them, including your own. If, as you say, people are indeed reticent about contributing because of my responses, and only mine, then the logical thing is for me to leave it to the others to get on with it. The point of the thread is to isolate things that can be done to widen the site's appeal and contributor base, so if you're correct then that is a rather obvious one.

I object to this logic being dismissed as "clever" and an attempt to shift responsibility etc, as Temp suggests. It is a genuine attempt to stop what would be otherwise a rather sad and ignominious decline into nothingness. The site can get a big send-off and shut down. Alternatively it can seriously reform itself to encourage more contributions. The worst outcome is an anonymous disappearance as people drop out due to perceived slights that - despite Priscilla's contributions above in which she excuses her own behaviour as "an occasional tart snap or two" - have never been intentional, even on her part I imagine.

PS: I also object to the accusation that I have "deleted" specific content I did not like. Not only is it blatantly untrue, it is especially harmful as it is said in a public forum where non-members, who might be reading this thread and forming an impression of its site's administrator prior to enrolling, have no reason to disbelieve it. That is the action of someone who is either not thinking before they commit false accusations to print, or someone who is actively intent on destroying the potential of a site they claim to have liked.

Note however that, despite the calumny of the accusation, it remains on the thread until such time as its author herself deletes it. Such has it always been here in the five years of activity that I have moderated.

Blunt enough, everyone? Or still too "sharp"?

Good grief, huffs, flounces and miffs everywhere today.

Viz has a point, Nordmann has been un-necessarily needled many times and it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
 
MM also has one, the over reaction and over sensitivity to any perceived slights has indeed reached ludicrous levels on occasions.

Ferval another valid point, Nordmann can be sharp on occasion but we know him well enough by now to understand that it is never intended to b personal. But yes, whether one agrees or not with any complaints the hearing should be fair.

All in all, just crack a few heads together that should sort it out.

Priscilla wrote:

Crossed posts with MM. Of course I am the other one along with Temps. Watch yer back Caro, you lauded us for attempting to make stands - for which even well grounded ferv noted replies to us could sometimes be stinging

No blindfolds, chums. just get on with it, do.

Come off it P. You can be stinging yourself at times, I've seen it often enough.

As indeed can I and everyone else for that matter have they the mind to, there are no victims here.

It's the eternal problem with this type of communication; without the visual and auditory clues embedded in direct conversation it's so hard to differentiate between, say, idiosyncratic humour and deliberate needling.  I get P's humour, cheeky besom, maybe not everyone does.
Added to that, it's not possible to know what else is going on, or has gone on, in other peoples' lives that may make them extra sensitive to something intended quite innocently. I have a skin like a rhinoceros but I do have a tendency to take up the cudgels on other's behalf - whether they want me to or not - and charge in so if I am doing that here I apologise, that is patronising on its own, but I feel when Temp said that a new member revealed to her that she felt 'terrified' it bears examination. i can't imagine that this thread helps, should it be moved to a private area?

Let's all do a bit of deep breathing and reflect upon how we can make this place work for all of us and attract others to join.

ferval wrote:

i can't imagine that this thread helps, should it be moved to a private area?

No, it is better that it is visible so that no one should be excluded from contributing, perhaps even some members who only occasionally browse the site and do not necessarily log in first. Their input is also welcome.

Your point about humour being problematic in this medium is a fair one. However inferences that I "edit" the site content by deleting comments unfavourable to me are not in any sense conceivably funny, or is it conceivable to me how they could be intended to be. So I will state my utter objection to the recent one (not the first time Priscilla has said this, by the way, so I assume my strong refutations the last time were not believed, or were simply dismissed as being "stinging" and slightful).

If a new member said she was "terrified" to contribute and blamed me at the time before electing not to come back then I could and really should have been informed, with the relevant information of course. I moderate my own content much more than I do that of other contributors, and I would definitely have taken measures were the allegations founded specifically on my behaviour and on specific content I had submitted.

The member told Temp that we were all terrifying, not just you, but I can understand your chagrin at being unfairly blamed for deletions, that would indeed sting.

Let's all calm down, all families are bloody irritating and this wee one is no different. I have a stroppy 10 year old to deal with this evening and that's enough for now.

But there are deletions, nord. In one thread, a little while back I removed several earlier ones of mine myself. I only mentioned it once some time back when another's post went missing - I had seen it and he confirmed it. That post was not a contentious one but it disappeared and I drew attention to it. I doubt I have said it again..... but have it as you will. Better I go. Carry on then and for goodness sake be happy - and I shall sign in to delete my stuff bit by bit in case you move somewhere else...... and possibly round off something.

I have never deleted anyone's posts with the exception of when people have posted the same thing twice by mistake and requested it. I totally object to the inference you repeatedly make that things "mysteriously disappear" as if having been deleted by me. You are of course free to delete anything from within your own posts as you see fit, and this has always been true, but no one else will do it for you without either access or permission from you.

It is not "better you go". It is better by far that you remain, but cease making allegations of underhand and non-transparent deletions by me of what I actually regard as this site's members own property and treat accordingly. It would be even better if you aplogised for having done so - it would at least put on the record for others reading this that you made a genuine error of judgement and that the integrity of this site's content has never been intentionally compromised by anyone here, least of all me - but as I have found out in the past this is apparently asking too much of you.

If you seriously believe that contributed elements of this site are being deleted without the members' permission or knowledge then I would like some specific details regarding the content in question and the time-frame involved so I can take it up on your behalf with the Forumotion administration staff whose responsibility it is to maintain the integrity of the databases we use in which to store content. This you can do through a public post, a private message, or a direct e-mail - all of which you have availed of in the past when contacting me so I know you know the drill.

ferval wrote:

It's the eternal problem with this type of communication; without the visual and auditory clues embedded in direct conversation it's so hard to differentiate between, say, idiosyncratic humour and deliberate needling.  I get P's humour, cheeky besom, maybe not everyone does.

No I don't suppose they do ferval. But there can also be something else on occasion that is merely masked as humour which is quite provocative. Or needling if you will.

None of which I personally have a problem with btw, different ways and styles of communcating is what makes the reading entertaining and interesting. But pretenses of innocence and flounces when someone bites back do stick in the craw somewhat.

The conclusion? As everyone communicates in different ways so do the receivers perceptions equally differ. No wonder we humans have a tendancy to squabble so much.

Well, this sensitive and unhappy little flower has had a good night's sleep and has rather seen the funny side of all this nonsense.

There are 3,675,824,813 internet users in the world as of June 30, 2016.

And TEN of them have voted here on our Great Squabble thread! The world holds its breath for the outcome of it all.

What's more, no one (apart from MM - sort of - and even he sounds a bit ambiguous), has begged me to stay and my finger really was hovering over the "Delete Membership" button yesterday. Good job I'm not Donald Trump. I am utterly mortified that you were not all horrified that you might never see me again, but see if I care.

I might start a Great Squabbles Thread. Some rows - especially in English villages - can be very funny, if they don't end in genuine tears and misery for some wretched person that is. There must be lots of examples of this in history, and of how ordinary people deal - or do not deal - with their petty (and not so petty) disagreements. The Bronte Society in Hawarth had a massive row last year, described by the Daily Mail as "Withering Slights". Things apparently descended into "a slanging match". At the Bronte Society! A "slanging match"! That really is appalling. We are all actually being very restrained and polite here, which is always good.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3638466/Withering-slights-Bronte-Society-AGM-descends-slanging-match-fan-club-s-ruling-body-accused-acting-like-Stasi-long-running-row-warring-factions.html

A row between traditionalists and modernisers within the Bronte Society boiled over at its annual meeting with one member accusing the ruling body of behaving like the Stasi secret police...

... the long-running rift boiled over at the meeting, held at the West Lane Baptist church in Haworth, Yorkshire, opposite the Bronte Personage Museum.



PS I don't know how to make links to other site names (not the whole web address) appear in yellow so all you have to do is click on to open some blog or other. I still put an old-style link - often quite long address, as above - which is obviously no longer the best thing to do.

At least no one has challenged anyone to a duel ... unlike the squabble between Pauline von Metternich and Countess Anastasia Kielmannsegg which culminated in a duel, fought with swords, and with both women topless and bare-breasted. The cause of the fight was an argument over flower arrangements for the 1892 Vienna Musical and Theatrical Exhibition.

Oh, that's brilliant, MM. In my own village I have known vicious accusations made about lemon meringue pie served at the Village Fete dinner and dance - and the Great Village Hanging Basket Competition Row circa 2008 (weed-killer was involved) is still never mentioned in front of certain important people on the Parish Council. No bare breasts, I hasten to add - the mind boggles.

On a serious note - I refer above only to my own nonsense. The ongoing discussion between Priscilla and Nordmann about the deletion of posts is most certainly not to be joked about or dismissed as flouncing or huffing or miffing - far from it.

I applied a mind dredge and came up with an unannounced deletion. I am author of both the Daily Rant and Daily Rave threads - or was until the Rant one was curtailed and authorship marked down to another member. This was for technical reasons, I was told when I asked because it was too big for its allocation - or something. I was not informed  - obviously there are site clean ups and deletions as in old quizzes etc. 

I once suggested that thread posts were numbered this would make ref to earlier ones easier etc. that was not possible, I assume. It would make evidence gathering re what Viz is demanding of me better but on the other hand who cares, anyway.

There are second thought edits made by members to their own posts too - sometimes made later and that can make the follow on response  seem odd but the 2 bots that follow our chat are probably not too bothered.  
And all of this does nothing to resolve the problem of how to broadcast our pearls to a wider participating pigpen. And if we do then we must come to terms with the eternal question about whether aliens built the pyramids.......God and Jesus might have further airing too. Imagine.

Priscilla wrote:

...God and Jesus might have further airing too. Imagine.

They really should be allowed to vote.

I don't see why - I have never been sure of their sense of humour and that is a touchy area on this site. (Not feely-touchy, I hasten to add. or as far as I know, that is.)

What you describe above is not mysterious at all and has been explained by me several times. Forumotion have a size limit on each thread, which is in effect a table within a database and therefore separately indexed. Each time a thread is browsed or a new post (ie. record) inserted the presentation of the table as a thread is calculated via this index prior to conversion to html code so that you can see it in your browser. Indexing a database becomes more complex the larger it gets. The larger each table index becomes the longer time this calculation takes and the result can be problematic, not just long delays but also time-outs within other dependent programmes, such as your browser, which results in loss of format or non-display. Hence the size limitation, which upon being reached results in an automatic generation of a new table, and therefore a new thread, from that record onwards. Hence therefore the apparent new "author" of the thread in question. The older data is automatically locked and then the administrator must decide if it is to be preserved or, as Forumotion advises, deleted to save storage space. In the past I have chosen not to delete any such threads of historical interest (such as "On This Day") but acceeded to their request with other threads (such as within "the pub" category, where "The Daily Rant" is situated). Within the pub category this deletion is indeed automatic. I am not a team of IT staff with time and resources to be analysing redundant data within my administraion and tackling each case manually so I have automated this process as far as possible within the Forumotion guidelines and tools available to me.

The second instance of deletion you cite is of content within a post by its author - an option well understood by regular members and often used by people here, as you know. This is open to the owner of the post in question at any time once the thread itself has not been locked for access.

Neither of these instances however match the basic inference you repeatedly have made now - that things "mysteriously" disappear here in a manner suspicious enough to warrant the allegation that I have intentionally targeted specific posts from other members which I then secretly deleted, the further inference being that I have done this purely because I did not agree with their content. This is the inference which, if you value the integrity of this site, you should rescind and apologise for having made on the same thread as you made it - thereby placing your error on record and mitigating the damage you have potentially done.

On the subject of readership - Google Analytics provide me with rather comprehensive breakdowns of visitor activity. Other than programmatic (ie. robot) access to this thread since it opened it has been read (ie. accessed, scrolled, and refreshed in periods of over 1 minute long) by 5,433 separate individuals, two thirds of whom did so yesterday. So the idea that this conversation is being held privately should be scotched immediately, and the importance of you withdrawing your completely false and injurious allegation should really be self-evident. Incidental readers of this thread came here via "landing points" elsewhere in the site - in other words they were curious to explore the site and see what it was about. Any of those who were potential members, and who came across an existing member accusing the administrator of underhand and dictatorial activity such as you have repeatedly suggested and which you never once have rescinded, would be forgiven for thinking it is a badly run amateurish site and not worth the hassle of continuing further with.

This is your opportunity to rectify that mistake, while this thread still is fresh enough to be viewed by these incidental guests.

To avoid confusion and further horrible allegations such as yours, I can of course remove the option for anyone to delete anything (many sites do exactly that). From an administration point of view this would also suit me completely too. However, given the frequency with which certain members avail of this function, I am not sure if this would indeed be a positive development in terms of user experience.

The apology I insist on is not simply to assuage my own hurt feelings, as you must well know despite your "weeping in the men's locker room" remark earlier, and must come soon, Priscilla. Or else this site isn't worth the hassle of maintaining by me any more. That is not a threat - it is a simple statement of fact regarding the site's integrity and my own. Rectify your error now or force me to decide if it is actually worth my time and effort keeping a site open in which I am the principal target of abuse and false allegation in the form of inferences regarding how this site is run by me. It is becoming a no-brainer for me, and increasingly so every time I am accused of being "hissy" or "flouncy" when I attempt to make this very point.

By the way, if others also share Pricilla's suspicions, please say it here and now. Or say it if you do not share them. One advantage of a small membership is that it should not therefore take much time to consider and decide the next obvious step.

EDIT: nordmann has just sent a post while I was typing which I haven't read.

Priscilla wrote:

I don't see why - I have never been sure of their sense of humour and that is a touchy area on this site. (Not feely-touchy, I hasten to add. or as far as I know, that is.)

I'm sorry - mine was a flippant remark above. I'm just trying to lighten the mood a tad this morning, and am no doubt failing dismally.

Look, I'm going to say this and then I'll pipe down for a bit.

I, no doubt, have done my fair share of "needling" (I'm just not very good at it), but I have honestly never meant to upset anyone badly or cause real hurt. Those of us who, as ferval said earlier, served our apprenticeship on the old BBC site, rather got used to - er - shall we say a rather robust type of humour, and learned - with varying degrees of success - to cope and to give as much as we received. That said, the atmosphere over there could get unhappy at times and some people became very distressed indeed, which was definitely not good. As in the playground, there are survivors and there are those who go under. Nobody on this site, as far as I know, has ever been made really unhappy. But perhaps some people out there are afraid - or wary - of the strong personalities here? And, as wise old ferval has also said, we do not know what is going on in people's lives to make them sensitive: illness and physical pain, bereavement, relationship difficulties, just getting older - all the usual stuff. Even some of the apparently "strong" personalities might be so suffering at times.

So, let us be charitable - I don't mean like Jesus' Sunbeams, but you know, just a bit kinder with one another. I include myself in the admonishment.

Does this sound like more pious crap from me? Oh, what the heck; I'll send it.

Then to the Compost Heap for the day. I'll talk to the worms - always a good idea.

Have I made constant allegations? I can recall only that one time when a post went missing and I drew attention to it - and then further up in this thread when asked to cite times when I have been provoked and I said stuff may have been deleted........ memory must be failing me . So It has suddenly become all down to me - either I tow your line or you leave? 
I think I have explained myself enough on this one. The site was was running down, you asked for  comment. I gave mine. Proof was demanded. Then an old issue of long ago resurfaced ....... you mentioned your tears before I did, nord and the cohorts gathered with agreeable hankies. If I go everything should be hunky dorey again. Sobeit. Be happy.

 Prexit, then.

I will freely say that having read the majority if not all the posts in question around the time that P says things were being deleted, I never saw anything going missing, other of course than posts deleted/edited by their own authors. I never did understand what the accusations were all about. And no I'm not offering Nordmann a consoling shoulder to cry on in "the men's locker room", nor am I ganging up on anyone ... I'm just stating it as I've experienced it.

Priscilla wrote:

Prexit, then.

No - no - no!

Please stop this!

I have honestly never noticed deletions - apart from my own and one or two others - but I do not believe that either Priscilla or nordmann would deliberately lie about such a serious thing. There must be some misunderstanding or genuine error here.

Oh lord, is this all proof of the lawyer's maxim"Never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to"

Who on earth are all these people who find our squabble so intriguing? Or have they just googled "Should we call it quits" when looking for advice about relationship difficulties and then stuck around to watch the fray?

No-one has ever deleted any of my posts - more's the pity in many cases.

Actually, I think this is the thread where I "lost" something that I tried to post omething yesterday.  Please don't leave us, Priscilla. That "Prexit" was quite witty!

I find this site a lot less toxic than others - I used to post from time to time on ordinary "Yahoo" articles.  I was quite surprised at the amount of spleen and venom that could be voiced in relation to quite mild comments.  For instance, there are some people who will blame every problem in the country on the presence of people of colour.  I mentioned something quite mild about the writer Thackeray having mentioned a negro servant in "Vanity Fair" so there had been people of colour in Britain for some while though probably a lesser number in times gone by.  Somebody replied something like I needed a million years of education though how he/she could assert that I didn't know what I was talking about when it's there in Thackeray's novel puzzled me. But I decided I didn't want to engage in online sparring so it is very rarely that I would bother with Yahoo comments now.

I have sometimes been conscious of some contributors to this website being educated to a higher level than myself - actually that made me hang back before joining.  I am reasonably well educated but I don't have a degree.   I appreciate the opportunity to learn new things. Then I have known people in my life who have had very little formal education and seem to be knowledgeable none the less.  

Meles Meles, that item about the Viennese ladies fighting is hilarious though it would be less hilarious if either lady was injured.  I thought the box the lady (presumably one of the seconds?) was bending over looked a bit like a modern day tablet computer.

Priscilla wrote:

Have I made constant allegations?

Yes, you have made the same allegation more than once. The allegations reside within the threads, such as this one, in which they were made. In each case I attempted to immediately address them so that my refutation would at least appear on the same page as they had been made. Notice that they were addressed by me, not deleted by me. When you ask about "constantly" in the context of published material then they are constantly visible, and if not also visibly addressed then constantly open to being believed.

I will determine when this issue has been "explained enough", thank you, and you in fact have not explained why publicly questioning my integrity was justified on your part and therefore merits no apology from you. I on the other hand have attemptedly explained why you should do just that, or else withdraw your allegation in as equally a public manner.

While one point of such explanation is to attempt to persuade you just how injurious your comments can be, a far more relevant point for me is that I also place on visible record for other readers how I administer the site and how much I value its integrity above all else. Otherwise there is no point having the site at all. This I will repeatedly explain for as long as I see fit.

If you choose to "resign" as a member rather than correct your mistake, as I have now said you should do more than once, then it is not I who has made it "down to you". I asked you to do a simple thing which would aid the site and resolve a problem you had made. You have chosen however to do something else.

If an apology is beyond you and the only option you see fit to take is actually withdrawing your contribution to the site while leaving your allegations regarding its (and my) integrity unaddressed by you, then I can see I just haven't got through to you my full objection to your behaviour in this instance and you just either refuse or fail to understand how critical it is in terms of this site's integrity and my commitment to continuing with it.

The site, by the way, is not "running down", and this was never my primary contention. Its discussion forum character is what is apparently losing relevance and appeal. It has trebled readership in the last year, despite the declining level of active contribution in that time, and despite the obvious disbelief of some members here when I have pointed out earlier that some content here gets quite a respectable readership indeed. It struck me therefore that it is becoming something of a blog entity in terms of how it is approached and tackled by internet users and search engines etc, and that a migration therefore to a more logical platform might be worth considering in which the good content can be highlighted and others' easy interaction with that content facilitated and enhanced. I am still open to suggestions regarding this.

I am more open to finding out however how many people share Priscilla's obviously firmly held suspicions regarding whether I should be the one to invest time and effort in doing so. If the perception of the site is indeed that it is run dictatorially and with preferred cliques - another allegation I absolutely refute, Priscilla, by the way - then this simply contributes to the "no-brainer" decision to which I referred earlier.

At the risk of being accused of handing Nordmann a hanky, rather than merely stating what I have and haven't seen. Also I refuse to be bullied into taking sides.

I've never noticed any deleted posts (neither mine or anyone else) either and am as baffled now at the accusation as I was when it was first mentioned. I thought it was jumping to conclusions then as much as I do now.

LiR wrote:

Actually, I think this is the thread where I "lost" something that I tried to post omething yesterday.

Losing something you had typed into the post-submission box upon hitting enter is a whole other issue, LiR. This is a connectivity problem in which your browser, for one of several possible reasons, no long remembers which IP address/URL it had first used when identifying the page being opened. It is frustrating when it happens, and it certainly is a problem that can be called "losing a post", but it is lost before ever having arrived at the Res His site. This is not the same at all as having submitted something, it having been registered within the database, it having been visible to everyone, and it then being deleted maliciously by a dictatorial administrator whose "cohorts" will always back him up when he pleads innocence etc etc.

Such is the nature of the allegation as it stands by Priscilla, and for which either an apology is made or equally frequent refutations from me will appear in such discussions.

When logging on this morning I saw this thread for the first time.

I've re-read the OP a couple of times, understandable Nordmann may be tired occasionally - we can all be like this once in a while, but why just about everyone, now!

I've enjoyed many of the discussions and exchanges of points of view, and hope to continue to do so.

And to quote Ferval above, "... No-one has ever deleted any of my posts - more's the pity in many cases." - This certainly goes for me as well.

That's my reasoning for voting no.






Edited 2 - so far.

nordmann wrote:

I am more open to finding out however how many people share Priscilla's obviously firmly held suspicions regarding whether I should be the one to invest time and effort in doing so. If the perception of the site is indeed that it is run dictatorially and with preferred cliques - another allegation I absolutely refute, Priscilla, by the way - then this simply contributes to the "no-brainer" decision to which I referred earlier.

Not from me you won't, I loathe cliques and the sillyness of the hunting in numbers mentality.
Which is one of the reasons why I do like this site, there aren't any.

As to Dictatorial, no I don't think you are Nordmann. In fact you give far more leeway than most other forums that could be named.

ID wrote:

As to Dictatorial, no I don't think you are Nordmann.

Actually things were better when Our Leader called himself the Dictator. All the trouble started when he demoted himself to being a Nobiles Barbariæ, whatever that Latin means. You know where you are with a Dictator and we all used to mind our P's and Q's, apart from P. that is. Q. left the site in a huff in 2015.

May I genuinely and respectfully suggest that you revert to being Dictator?

I hope things can be resolved - I think everyone here really wants that.

MM's picture was hilarious, wasn't it, LiR? I wonder who emerged the victor in the duel? It would make a good advert for Triumph bras.

I may still start a Squabbles thread: may I have your permission to move your post and picture if I do, MM, or would you reproduce it on a new thread?

Temperance wrote:

Actually things were better when Our Leader called himself the Dictator. All the trouble started when he demoted himself to being a Nobiles Barbariæ, whatever that Latin means. You know where you are with a Dictator and we all used to mind our P's and Q's, apart from P. that is. Q. left the site in a huff in 2015.

May I genuinely and respectfully suggest that you revert to being Dictator?

I know you are being humourous Temp ... but I will just add that it is very difficult being "in charge" and a contributor at the same time. I once was editor of a newsletter for a small social club, and found it very hard balancing being the even-handed editor on one hand trying to encourge debate and articles, and on the other hand contributing stuff myself but without turning the whole thing into a personal blog (or the printed equivalent, it was the 1990s). Personally I think Nordmann does it very well, and I hope he continues to contribute as well as function as moderator/boss/manager.

Temperance wrote:

MM's picture was hilarious, wasn't it, LiR? I wonder who emerged the victor in the duel? It would make a good advert for Triumph bras.

Actually, and in answer to LiR's hope that no-one there was hurt .... both lady duelists sustained injuries, although nothing too serious, but then apparently they still continued to argue over who had drawn first blood ... until their friends finally got them to agree to disagree.  And in truth, despite the picture, they were not actually bare-breasted. One of the seconds, Baroness Lubinska, who was trained in medicine, had insisted they fight without their blouses, chemises and corsets because she feared that if a piece of fabric got trapped in a wound it might lead to sepsis. And so actually they retained their light corset covers for the sake of decency, although all those present were women. But it was still seen as fairly scandalous. And all over a flower arrangement!

For the avoidance of doubt I wasn't accusing you of bouncing my entry off the site, Nordmann, in fact when I lost what I was typing I don't think you were even logged in.  I wondered if the site could have had "gremlins" which had attacked some of Priscilla's posts?  I seem to remember one thread or part of one being renamed though I can remember neither its original name or its current name, sorry... There was an explanation given for so doing if I recall.

I don't think the site is "cliquey".  Of course whether a thread becomes a lively one depends on the responses it receives and since we are all different people with different interests so individual members likely pick up on varying threads according to what intrigues each of them as an individual, and hence some threads blossom and some remain somewhat quiet. Like it's possible that the PG thread which is currently in the doldrums may spring back to life when "The White Princess" is shown on TV (though maybe not as I don't know if anyone here will watch it unless in a 'love to hate' way). Nordmann hasn't stopped the Moggy Thread even if he feels it is a bit silly so he doesn't come across as dreadfully intolerant.

Priscilla, what you do is of course your own personal choice, but I hope you stay.

Temp, all I am is the site administrator, who sees in that role a duty to keep the site functioning. Occasionally that extends to keeping the site visible on the internet and worth continuing with.

That is it. I am not "Our Leader", a "Dictator", or any other title which, in light of Priscilla's publicly stated allegation, just isn't funny anymore.

Can we address the principal issues here?

Does Priscilla make a point shared by other regular members? If not, then that issue is between me and her wherever she raises it, and I will always actively and vehemently refute it where and when she does. It is important that unfounded allegations are refuted as visibly as they were made, and  much more determinedly.

If her opinion is shared, especially by regular contributors, then it is obvious that it is I who in fact is the one posing the biggest problem to the site's integrity - the public interpretation of my role and actions being far more relevant in cases such as this than whether or not it is grounded in fact. In which case everyone else must decide amongst themselves if they wish to continue with it and who among them should administer it.

If the consensus is that the site continues, then regardless of who is administering it we should face the very obvious fact that the present discussion forum layout and character is increasingly at odds with how most visitors wish to interact with it, the increased visibility and readership in recent times seemingly indicating a potential willingness on their part but the dearth of new membership indicating a reluctance to interact quite in the way afforded them. This was the original purpose of this thread and remains the primary one.

If, as LiR and ferval have stated, the site's existing membership is perceived as daunting then this is a comment about the content as much as the character of those members. What the activity analysis increasingly indicates is that this content has however become exponentially more popular the less it has become attractive to ready interaction from "new blood". This suggests to me that what we have created here is an asset which is being badly managed and not a failed entity. When I see Meles meles contribution here regarding pugilistic snails being cited in academic journal submissions (not to mention his "Dish of the Day" which ranks about 50th most popular thread in terms of hits, but is way out at number one in terms of large numbers coming back repeatedly to it - even after he has given up on it apparently) then I see potential for even more dynamic and exciting exposure of such talented content to public interest with its author obviously benefiting from migration to a more easily accessible medium. There are other less obvious threads that also generate huge first-time hits but which, if approached by navigating through this site's structure, then are fairly anonymous and difficult to find at all. I could go on, but you get my drift. A new site location and function might not be a bad thing at all.

Based on what I can learn from the discussion here I can then evaluate my own interest in continuing to contribute, in the current format or in such a migration, to what extent, or if at all.

Deleted.

I'll withdraw from this conversation. Obviously you need to attract more serious, mature and academic types, nordmann.

I would rather you did not withdraw but instead be generous enough to address the points I am raising. Despite rumours to the contrary it is not in my nature to unilaterally pull the plug on any aspect to the site, even my own involvement, without it being discussed first by the members. Those who use this discussion as a public opportunity to "withdraw" from it are actually still making quite a strong statement about how much they value this site, though maybe not one which accurately reflects their actual feeling on the matter.

In the post I deleted above, I did say that the position of "Dictator" was an honourable and respected one in Rome. My posts today have no doubt been my usual poor attempt at humour, but nothing has been done in a malicious spirit - but have been rather desperate, if ill-advised, attempts to prevent an unhappy situation spiralling out of control. I have obviously simply annoyed you further and have made things worse.

I think I have always done my best to be generous - have you bothered to read the post above where I apologised for any hurt I have caused?

We are all in danger of disappearing up our own backsides here - this is all just getting too stressful for words. Do you ever, ever give an inch, nordmann? Do you ever apologise when you have hurt people?

I of course apologise if I wrong someone, especially without meaning to. I have also read all the posts so far, yes, including the one to which you refer. Your apology is kindly made, and gratefully noted, but I have to confess it is not really what I am attempting to elicit from people here. Priscilla's outstanding apology aside (which concerns a false allegation regarding the site's administration), this is not about people's propensity to offend at all. The discussion concerns the character of the site, its physical structure, its potential to survive as a viable presence on the internet, and its potential to attract new input from new sources in new ways.

I share your fear that some here will attempt to explain their view from up their own backsides, which in terms of audibility is not entirely favourable to good discussion. At the risk of being accused of talking out of my own arse can I therefore simply iterate my hope that the discussion can address the points I have made and people's views on them?

nordmann wrote:

It is important that unfounded allegations are refuted as visibly as they were made, and  much more determinedly.

In full agreement and, as you said earlier, this is critical to the whole ethos of the forum, its good character and the pleasant nature of it which we enjoy. The allegation regarding deleted posts does seem unfounded. I've certainly never experienced it. As far as I can see it stems from a comment made by Paul on the Religions – The Benefits thread on Wed 21 Oct 2015:

PaulRyckier wrote:

Nordmann, if you find back my message from Thursday evening...?

Now allowing for language translation and syntax etc then this comment could refer to or mean any manner of things and only Paul would probably be qualified to clarify exactly what. The following day, however, Priscilla took it to mean:

Priscilla wrote:

There is also stuff going on in posts that disturb - for instance, Paul says his last post is missing - he did not delete it

It seems to be that this assumption regarding the meaning of what was written is at the root of the matter. What we really need, perhaps, is for Paul to clarify exactly what he meant.

To return to the topic (she says optimistically) way back, before all this really kicked off, I asked if it were possible to allow guest postings, I still think that this facility might allow passers-by to give us a try without an initial commitment.

I also mentioned before that since the demise of the BBC POV board there is nowhere that I can find where historical/archaeological programmes are discussed in any depth. Some of the fictional ones are touched on pretty superficially (the limited range reviewed or recapped in such as the Guardian are something of an exception but more geared towards consideration of the acting, writing, general entertainment value etc rather than the historical content) but there seems to be a total absence of anywhere for discussion of documentaries. Perhaps the Historical TV and Radio thread could be revived and used as 'bait' to lure unsuspecting minnows?
And no sharp billed herons waiting to snap them up instantly please, be gentle.

The site is trawled on a daily basis (especially I notice from India) for opportunity to post content without having to enroll as members. This is easy to see from the software they use to examine the html content of every single page and which attempts to find a match for particular code which indicates that, at most, they must enter a verification code or similar to "prove" they are human. At one time this was sufficient protection but not any longer - the door it opens for them is the ability to post html and java code of their own which in effect converts this site into a spamming hub. These are very much humans, probably the same ones who ring you up and offer to fix your windows for you, so no, that is unfortunately not an option.

The TV suggestion is a good one, and I should have thought of it long ago. Not as a thread but as a category in its own right. I'll see about that.

Viz, that was the first such instance I recall also. You will see that I refuted it twice quite quickly afterwards and when the accusation was then slightly altered suggested an apology mightn't hurt. None came, and I foolishly decided to forgive it and move on. In fact what I did was to leave the allegation on constant view, without it being visibly retracted, on what was at that time one of the most universally viewed topics by outsiders.

Yet, as you have demonstrated, it was not deleted - not by the person who made the allegation, and certainly not by me!

Oh dear, I see someone has voted 'yes' to closing the site.  Still when I looked only one person (thus far) had voted thus.  I voted for keeping the site going.

As I said in an earlier comment, I find statements made by participants of this website a lot less vitriolic than those made on some other sites.  I like the size of this website not being "ginormous" - I've never joined Historum because it seems very big and sprawling.  That doesn't mean I wouldn't welcome new members here of course.

I don't know how other members use the site.  I must own that I'm lazy and hit "Shortcuts" and so that means I happen on the threads where postings have been made most recently and so may forget about threads which have not been active lately.  Perhaps I should be more methodical and access the threads on a topic by topic basis.

I know what Nordmann means about spamming because other forums (fora?) - not history ones  - I've visited have sometimes been bombarded by posters with links to sites for Viagra or Nike shoes and stuff of that ilk.

Priscilla, if you are still accessing the site I would be sorry to see you leave.

Nordmann, managing  Res His has its difficulties I guess - the old saying about "A dirty job but someone's got to do it" comes to mind.  I'm quite happy for you to carry on looking after the site; I for one am content just to be an intermittent contributor (sometimes I look on the site without logging in first to see if I have anything to say on topics and if I don't I just read but remain silent); I certainly don't want the responsibility of running it.

Is it possible that because many of us are "mature" people those young enough to think of themselves as the cool kids aren't attracted to the site.  I don't want the site to dumb down to attract the cool kids, mind, the very thought drives shivers down my back and not in a good way.

I can't think of anything off the top of my head as to how to make the site more appealing.  It is not bad as is.  While I'm  here I'll just mention that the toolbar that used to appear above the "typing in" box has disappeared (the one with the buttons about emboldening, italicising and linking to other sites); I don't know if that is down to the site or to my computer (I've set the 'ghostery' app to block as many "trackers" as possible).  I can't think that I personally have ever had a comment deleted (but then my head can be like a leaky bucket sometimes).  I'll have a think to see if I can come up with any suggestions about the site - no promises though.

LiR, the absence of any element in the dialogue box must be down to software on your machine. It is still being generated by the site. All suggestions though are welcome, whether they are technically feasible or not. Ones that aren't feasible using the software and program language we avail of in Res Historica may be perfectly do-able if it is relocated to a new platform. Don't hold back.

And on the subject both of duels and of offence being taken rather than given, I can match your two Liechtenstein royal dames, MM, with two from Cool Britannia. In 1792 a Mrs Elphinstone was a guest of one Lady Braddock in the latter's house on the Bayswater Road in London, when the former said this to her hostess: “You have been a very beautiful woman. You have a very good autumnal face even now, but you must acknowledge that the lilies and roses are somewhat faded. Forty years ago, I am told, a young fellow could hardly gaze upon you with impunity.”

Now if this had been two blokes I imagine the response would have been "And it's still all bleedin' working down there too!" or similar. However it wasn't two blokes, it was two ladies, and so the outcome was that Lady Braddock immediately summoned two staff to act as seconds, grabbed Elphinstone by the bustle, and marched her across the road to Hyde Park to have a duel to the death!

Being au fait with the rules they first of course took turns to shoot at each other, Elphinstone being allowed to take the first pot-shot, having been the one challenged, and who then succeeded in blowing Braddock's hat from her head. Braddock, probably a little understandably shaky after that, missed her opponent completely.



Again, if this had been blokes, that would have been the end of it. But not for Lady Brackell who, citing the ancient right of seeking "satisfaction" again as the aggrieved party since the first volley had not drawn blood, then suggested they increase this likelihood by getting into a proper sword fight about the issue. In the ensuing clash Mrs Elphinstone received a slight nick on her arm, at which point Lady Braddock deemed the matter now settled. Both then retired back to Braddock's house to complete their afternoon tea, though Mrs Elphinstone also promised to send a letter of apology at the earliest inst. The niceties had been observed, as is proper with ladies.

MM, I have corrected a spelling mistake, but you have reproduced it when you quoted me above. Would you be so kind as to change "dual" to "duel" for me? Ta. Silly request, I know, but would be grateful.


May I suggest we all retire amicably for tea and cucumber sandwiches? No cheap, fizzzy plonk though - that would probably be a big mistake at the moment.

I sincerely hope Priscilla responds...




PS The security certificate issue could be a problem for some would-be members: I tried to access the site on a computer in the Exeter main library a bit ago, but couldn't. Got the message that this was a dodgy site. I also still get a message regularly here on my own computer about the security problem, and am repeatedly asked the question: "Do you wish to proceed?" Up till now I have always pressed the "Yes" button. Some people perhaps just can't access the site if their computer protection won't let them.

And, alas, it is always the ladies who cause all the problems in this world, is it not? You just can't have an intelligent, rational conversation with any of us.

Blokes now...

Ah well, time for us women to let the swords sleep in our hands, I think. Enough is enough.

nordmann wrote:

Can we address the principal issues here?

Does Priscilla make a point shared by other regular members? If not, then that issue is between me and her wherever she raises it, and I will always actively and vehemently refute it where and when she does. It is important that unfounded allegations are refuted as visibly as they were made, and  much more determinedly.

If her opinion is shared, especially by regular contributors, then it is obvious that it is I who in fact is the one posing the biggest problem to the site's integrity - the public interpretation of my role and actions being far more relevant in cases such as this than whether or not it is grounded in fact. In which case everyone else must decide amongst themselves if they wish to continue with it and who among them should administer it.

Possibly another poll would give clear and concise answers to your question Nordmann? I had thought most had given their answers but they have disappeared amongst everything else.