rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:54 am

I am afraid that Keith and John's recent comments reflect the sad state of affairs that this forum seems to have drifted into. I have also recently stated that my enthusiasm has been severely damaged by the constant rudeness and bickering which has been occurring.

When I think back to the past, of some of the fantastic exchange of ideas that have taken place, the good old ammunition debate being a good example. That topic went on for months, was argued about in a superb way, with some humour and with a cut and thrust which made people want to read more.

That is not the situation at the moment. If people like Keith, John and Mike have all expressed their feelings in no uncertain manner, then I think that this forum does seem to have a problem. Without their contributions we might as well say goodbye to this forum, because it would be a sad place without them.

I know Alan will say that everyone has a right to express their opinions, but if the future of this forum is threatened by he removal of this expertise in various fields, then something has to be done quickly before the only input we get is merely downloaded straight from the Internet.

Graham

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:30 am

Alan,
would it not be possible to create another index section (Call it what you will) where those interested in exploring the facts from whatever source can do so and share there findings with other like minded individuals which are open to discussion.

Those that want history book facts can find them on this forum by asking those with the knowledge.

Asking a question to get an answer is like going on the Ask Jeeves web-site, no discussion.

This is a discussion forum

Ian Knight interview from Secrets of the dead.

Knight admits that some scholars are still skeptical about his revisionist account of the events at Isandlwana. "A number of more conservative historians are quite resistant to these new ideas. It often hangs on your world view -- how you look at various aspects of the British Empire, how you view the colonial period, how reluctant you are to give up on these myths that you probably grew up on," he says. "We occasionally have people who say that we are talking nonsense. But one of the valuable things about archaeology is that it gives you the evidence to say 'Fine, but this is what we've actually found on the ground, and it is why we think it actually did happen like we say.'"

I think this is so true.

Regards

HARMAN. P

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:58 am

Dear All,

this is obviously very tricky for me.

On the one hand I want the forum to be a place where people can speak their mind. As suggested though, contributers should read the topic carefully, and check their response even more carefully. I don't want to get to the situation where the integrity of the site is threatened. On the other hand it would be wrong to be exclusive to a particular level of expertise.

I shall in future place on the forum, a point of order comment following any contribution which strays from what we all know to be the correct way to behave. I don't believe that everyone reads their piece before clicking on 'Submit'. I wish they would.

The point of order will be public rather than by private email. Persistent breaches will end in removal from the member list.

This forum is too important for it to be jeopodised for the sake of rash and inconsidered comments by a few.

Please take note.

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Alan

Could I suggest that 'the corrrect way to behave' needs to be articulated in a set of 'discussion rules', or a 'code of conduct', or a 'good form guide', if you will. This does not need to be more complicated than 7 or 8 short and relevant paragraphs, so would be neither difficult nor time consuming to produce. This would enable you to make your points of order by citing a breach against a particular paragraph (or rule) number.

I make this suggestion because any 'disciplinary' system needs to be seen to be scrupulously fair. Rather like policemen, moderators can only police effectively by commanding the popular support of the community at issue. [I promise not to use the 'community' word again! Wink

]

Sadly 'We all know the correct way to behave' is far from being a safe assumption (is not the whole of the UK gripped by that very issue, as a result of the Brand/Ross affair?), so making the ground rules transparent can only be to everybody's benefit.

A second point, if you will indulge me for a moment longer. I suggested a number of weeks ago that a mission statement for rdvc was needed. In other words, we need to articulate 'what on earth are we all here for?' I perceive that without a mission statement, you will be unable to resolve the fundamental divergence between those who, on the one hand, see the forum as a vaulable historical resource, a place of learning and an assemblage of decent people who share a common historical interest, and on the other hand, those who wish to use it rather more loosely for 'chat', after the fashion of 'youtube' if you will. As I have already indicated, my personal view is that the further we move from good history, the closer we step to destruction, but that's just my opinion and you will want to sound out the opinions of others.

I honestly think these are two very easy and wholly sound measures which can only make your burden a little bit easier to bear, and will also rebound to the common good.

Yours as ever

Mike

PS I had to use 'assemblage' to avoid saying the c word again!!

Very Happy

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:16 pm

Mike,
thank you for the input.

I'll start a discussion point in 'Welcome' section inviting
suggestions as to the guidelines for membership of the forum which all
contributors would need to follow in placing topics and responses.

After all, the forum does belong to its members.

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:36 pm

I believe the implementation of these two suggestions by MIke might help to put this forum back on the tracks from which it's been derailed of late. Two "points of order" that I would like to see on the rulebook:

1) At no time will the spelling or grammar of another contributor be corrected in print as long as the point being made is able to be understood by any "reasonable" reader, nor shall errors in these mechanical issues be judged in such a way as to suggest the statement is somehow made less valid by their presence. Hey, not everyone can spell or conjugate a verb effortlessly, but that doesn't mean their input lacks merit. Years ago on another forum, I made the mistake of spelling "Isandlwana" with an "h" as I'd never seen it spelled any other way. The implication from then on was pretty much "What does he know, he spelled it "Isandhlwana"-- WITH AN "H"!

2) Could we please lose the unwritten double jeopardy prohibition rule that shows up every so often in the phrase "We've already talked about that on the Old Forum"? Maybe it's just a quirk of mine, but somehow my response to this comment has always been in the order of "So? What's your point?" If I wasn't involved in a conversation last month it doesn't mean that I wouldn't enjoy a similar conversation today. If a member talked himself out on a subject in the past, he isn't obligated to repeat himself unless he feels that his input is worth repeating-- if it isn't worth repeating, then it's a moot issue anyway.

3) I know I said two, but I'm expanding it to three! With respect for several very important contributors to this forum, my use of gendered pronouns is simply a convention since it's just too cumbersome to type "he/she" every time. That convention should be a given.

Just some thoughts, maybe to help get the ball rolling so to speak.

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:42 pm

Sorry, Alan. That was a preemptive strike on your part just now. When I started typing my little rant you hadn't submitted your above comment and then I hit "submit" and it suddenly was! Embarassed

Feel free to move me if you can and make up a suitable subject line.

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:59 pm

Sawubona

Your 1 and 2 are both eminently sound suggestions in my view. They are matters of simple good manners I think.

Regards

Mike

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:11 pm

All:

Here's another suggestion that may or may not make it into print, but we have all seen it happen.

There are those of us who have very strong feelings about some of the historical figures of the AZW, but, in the articulation of those feelings, seem to step across the line. Here's some examples, and I include myself in them:

1. Some of us think so highly of Durnford, for example, that we have a hard time accepting criticism of the actions of this historical figure by other memebers. I myself respect his memory highly.
2.Chelmsford is another example. We may disagree with his actions, but I see no need to demonize him to the extent that we get into arguments over it.

These soldiers are historical figures, and as human beings, were no better or worse than those in the present. We should be able to discuss their merits or their faults without treating them as saints or pariahs, and we should be able to discuss them with reasonable soberness. Let's face it, if we can discuss the merits of sports figures without anger, shouldn't we be able to do this with historical figures? Nothing we say will change what they did anway, and it may be very difficult to change another members view of that historical figure in the first place.

Also, for all their individual foibles, these soldiers are part of an honorable profession that current members respect highly. Denigration of the individual which reflects on the honor of the army as a whole, for example, is offensive to many current members.

Historical facts are just that. To discuss them is one thing, to argue so strongly that we display anger or frustration is not an appropriate display in this, or quite franklly, in any forum.

Just my thoughts, convoluted as they sometimes can be.

Bill

Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 9:57 pm

Bill

Eloquently put.

Alan

I am a novice here, as Peter Ewart can confirm; the loss of this website would be a serious hinderance to myself and my family's knowledge of the AZW; I now own a new book (1880) that another member of this forum recommended - without his input I would have no knowledge.

Please filter out the dross, and safeguard the expertise that are available to the likes of myself and other genuine members.

Regards

JK

Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:47 am

Hi Alan, I feel so sorry for you on a personal level after all you and your brother's hard work. it's getting beyond the pale when this forum has been hijacked by a minority of oppertunist's who's behavevour is so transparent by the interjection's of there personal persona's and which has little or no connection with the fascinating history of the Anglo Zulu War.the latest proposal's should be seen for what they are CENSORSHIP.good order and disipline is all very well but remember what certain members are proposing is really the thin edge of a very sticky wedge. i don't care if you are a " expert " or somebody who came to this subject today!everybody is entitled to share freely the vast ammount of knowledge available to everybody at the point of contact. with out ego,s. remember what we say today can be seen by by those who come tomorrow. ( unless you delete and deprive.bad form ) democracy. freedom of speech..political correctness..hogwash..regard's Alan.sorry if this add's to your woe's cracking job mate.Leslie.