Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thread for comments about the new site policy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

    Hi Gary
    I think there are still researchers who are drawn to JTR Forums specifically because of its past reputation for it being mainly research orientated.
    For me suspect discussion and debate can be very interesting from a research point of view and new information does come out but personally, I find when two opposing camps reach a stalemate over a certain question the rest of an otherwise interesting thread gets bogged down in personal attacks and insults fuelled by sheer frustration. Those threads tend to need the most moderation and as the site is run and maintained by volunteers who don't really have the time for all that and whose main interest was in preserving past research on the site, I think having this option is sensible.


    Hi Debs,

    Human nature being what it is, it’ll be very difficult to discourage the argy-bargying - which often accompanies research-focused threads without any suspect theory being to blame.

    When the future of JTRF was under threat I went back and read through a lot of the threads I’d contributed heavily to and got rather annoyed by how much off-topic stuff there was clogging them up. Even the witticisms contributed by our dear departed Robert (and others) got in the way. I had the rather daft idea of using a thread to demonstrate how valuable research often developed on the Forums. Perhaps as the basis for an article in the WJ or Ripperologist. But you’d have to cut so much irrelevant stuff out and a heavily edited version wouldn’t be true to the original.

    I’m sure the site is safe in the capable hands of Chris and the Committee.​

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
      And if a person is trying to research a specific subject, might not the search engine redirect them to one of these speculative threads, or will they not be part of the search engine's data base? It seems like at least part of the motivation is to make this a more orderly site, so someone might actually be able to find meaningful data instead of an argument.
      As I understand it, the search engine will show results only for threads to which the searcher has access.

      Comment


      • #18
        I think it might be worth trying. Let's see how it develops. If it doesn't work the committee can change it again. I understand each view that is expressed. In practice we will see whether it is more positive or more negative. Maybe the modest expectations will be exceeded.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Karsten Giese View Post
          I think it might be worth trying. Let's see how it develops. If it doesn't work the committee can change it again. I understand each view that is expressed. In practice we will see whether it is more positive or more negative. Maybe the modest expectations will be exceeded.
          Of course, it's true that the committee can always change the rules. But we have taken some time to consider this, and as I said, it was a unanimous decision, and no reservations were expressed. So this shouldn't be viewed as a trial period or anything like that.

          Comment


          • #20
            Okay! I accept that.

            Comment


            • #21
              It suddenly occurs to me there may have been a misunderstanding.

              I created this thread because people had started to comment on the other thread in "Posting Guidelines", and I thought it would be clearer to keep the guidelines themselves separate from the comments. It wasn't created to invite or encourage comments, though of course people are free to comment if they want to.

              Comment

              Working...
              X