A Community Statement

[Saurreg]

I have been here for a long time now though I have not posted as much as my contemporaries of the same period of inception into the forum. It is in my opinion, the is a stricter and more tense mood on the boards now then compared to the days when the new cadre of moderators were not in commission yet. Suffice to say, the mood has made me very uncomfortable.

If I should sum up what I feel about this current state of this site in a sentence, it would be,

An unexpected and dubious connoction of "political correctness" and "moral righteousness" has gotten a grip on the boards, resulting in an authoritarian and increasingly elitist atmosphere that is unnerving to many of the older users

Before this fiasco, the serious book discussion forum was a self-censoring, self moderating place. There was no need for any moderator to step in and ask another user to stop posting or to serve a penalty. The community itself looked out for one another and preserved the integrity and morality of that wonderful place out of their own will and loyalty to the site. Indeed any trash spewing or overtly aggressive user were swiftly nipped in the butt by the other veteran members before they could even start a path of "destruction" The serious book discussion forum was one of the best protected board I have come across through my years of internet participation in discussions. I have never seen a "public"community as united and resolute in defending the state of that board in all my life.

The facts speak for themselves. Close scrutiny of the old threads would show that any undesirable elements were quickly suppressed not just by Esty but also by the veterans users.

And Davem was one such user (more of what I think of his ban later).

Play nice, now that's a good thing to have, no doubt about it. But the degree of civility and politeness in various forums differ due to the very nature of the site, the forum's purposes and the discussion that is going on. Let's all admit it, the serious book discussion forum has always been intimidating, severe and stern for the casual newcomers, because the good users are really excellent debators and their posts are always curt, straight to the point and no-nonsense. Given that at all times difficult and time-consuming topics are on the agenda, the good users have to cut down on the non-essentials and go post their feelings and thoughts with proofs, quotes and whatnots; which is a good thing because long meandering posts (which I feel this is going to be, oh dear what a noob I am) tend to lose their gist and do not contribute much in substance. As such a degree of civility and politeness is curbed but I must emphasize that in all times these good users do not go over the board vulgar. Harsh at times, yes but never ever insulting.

So what is a noob (like yours truly) going to do when you enter a debate with a head full of high ideas only to be deconstructed by the big boys point by point and at times a bit harshly? You either stop posting and disappear which many have, or you could simply acknowledge your own inadequacy, read more, learn and try again. The second was my approach and I do feel that my debating skills have improved because of it. Of course it does come with a little sting to the pride but learn to eat humble pie. Never be overtly defensive, read careful and think before posting and never be afraid to admit to your mistakes and apologise. All these I learned to do and I am most grateful to say that those good users most probably saw the effort on my part and they never ever sought to demean me or ignore my subsequent posts.

The worst thing you could do when deconstructed and having your butt handed to you is to be highly upset, show that you're upset and turn the debate into a personal slugfest which is what I thought the bible thread had become. Instead of letting go and just giving yourself and the other chap abreak, some chose to continue posting until the point where I felt what was posted became increasingly deviating from the gist of the thread and at points irrelevant.

The netiquette of not debating (or posting) for simply the sake of debating/posting was lost and even more despicable was the efforts by some to want to appear as the "victim" even when their own posts were getting more insulting with every count. And what was the good user going to do when such posts are directed at him/her? Patience would of course be lost and sarcasm and curt posts would definitely be made. But pray remember what made the good users resort to such an approach in the first place?

So now to Davem's ban - I will not discount that fact that in the bible disscusion and in a post in another thread as linked by The Saucepan Man, Davem made some sarcastic posts which perhaps was not quite proper (but IMO understandable). But to hold him solely at fault and ask that he leave the thread (that I disagree the most since his posts carried an urgent message) was not right. I guess the last straw was to consider his posts in that thread against him when serving the penalty.

And as for the poem, he was simply in his way, showing what he felt about the so called suburban Shire homestead. We have been told that the final ban was not made solely because of that poem (which incidentally, caused some users to reply to it) but I am sure that post played a part in the decision in maintaining the ban.

So the ban was served and yada yada life goes on- BUT the person who was ultimately banned was never given notice nor allowed the final opportunity to even know (let alone defend) himself from why he was banned. The reasons as given by a moderator are IMO shoddy and do not justify the repeating offender profile given to Davem.

Suffice to say people might question the motives of the ban, but people will question the rational behind the decision-making process. By this manner of banning Davem and the lacking explanation given so far, I feel as though there is a great impenetrable wall that seperates us from the moderators and administrators, a wall that at this moment of time promises to get higher and thicker, creating a class system in this wonderful place where I thought we were all equals.

Noone likes to have a damocles sword tangled over their heads held only by a string which we know not of tensile strength or tolerance.

And this brings me to the point of political correctness and moral righteousness which seems to be a fad of the boards nowadays. Given what I have posted above, do we really need someone to constantly look out and censor every post so that a "12 year old" that stumbles upon a thread will not go about telling all that he learned of what is hell (be it concept or lingo application) and all the other whatnots were from the barrow-downs?

First of all, would a twelve year old be really interested in going into the serious book discussion forum and reading through (with understanding) every thread in the serious book discussions? And secondly, who are we kidding in "protecting" an innocent child from getting the wrong ideas from what has been posted.

Like I've mentioned, the forum in question is self-moderating and censoring. Chances are that that remarkable child who in this age is so "pure and innocent" as not have any knowledge on religious and sexual topics (even though he knows how to surf the far more dangerous internet) is not going to stumble upon something really really bad.

...except maybe the posting habits and style of said disasterous newbies in argument with other users. God help us all then.

And what of respecting other people's beliefs and religions and fantasies etc etc? First of all, self-moderation and censorship will without doubt butcher whatever falsities and misinformations. Secondly, if the thread or posts offend then in all common sense, stop reading! With that I submit that the moderators need not pay too much trouble to those the complain of undesirable elements in the Downs. Chances are those non-users are too dense to understand the posts of the good users that regulate the thread or are too dumb to stop reading.

[Lalwendë]

Personal attacks? That is something I never saw from davem's posts. He did post the contents of a couple of PMs, but these were swiftly censored and no harm was done; even in these he was not making 'personal attacks' but asking why certain comments had been made - and before anyone gets numpty about this, please remember that it is an entirely natural reaction to wish to defend oneself. Otherwise, no, I can find nothing which could have been construed as 'personal attack'.

If davem at some points gained the upper hand in debate by finding holes in matters of divinity and theology and it upset some people, I think they may want to stop and consider for a moment the idea of 'strength of faith'; many here have faith (me included) and we have all been challenged. I too have found some deeply unpleasant comments by members old and new on the Downs. Savaging and bullying of newbies. Clever asides in posts and signatures that people think are so 'clever' others will not 'get' them - they do 'get' 'em.

All of this is just because we're all human and we will fall out from time to time. It doesn't mean we hate each other - at least I know that myself and davem wouldn't do that anyway! Erm, don't know about anyone else! But I'd hope a few flamin' (sometimes literally 'flaming') words don't cause you to hate someone.

If davem chose to criticise the 'Bible' thread for being unworthy of the 'Books' forum then he ought to be able to say that. Any member ought to be able to ask the valid question: Is This A Valid Question? As a long standing member who was always concerned to find new points for discussion and not to allow the forum to slowly die into obscurity, he believed he was driving us to be more rigorous, more discerning.

OK, so we all understand that 'content' is a simple thing to define and pick up on when someone puts something inappropriate on the board - e.g. swearing, something a bit too adult etc. A mod tells you off, you might argue about it, but in the end it goes. It's easy to edit, easy to remember what, in future, not to write!

Anyway, that's the taters, now for the meat.

Tone is a whole different kettle of fish. Tone is about nuance, subtlety, humour, irony, all of those complex language issues. What is acceptable in Tone is totally different between English speakers across the world (not to mention Tone can be moderated by Age, Race, Class and Gender, but to discuss this would take up days so I'll concentrate as much as possible). How davem writes may be abrasive to one person, but I have to say it is entirely normal in the UK to use sarcasm, and to be ironic. How are we to understand such cultural differences? How are we to be mindful of them?

Example. Davem made a great point about the understanding of the word 'fundamentally' in the Americas and in Britain. In the Americas it means "exactly", "definitely", "at core" - hence why when Tolkien says "a fundamentally Catholic work" many American readers think "Right! It's at core a Catholic book!". However in the UK we use the language more fluidly, lazily, sloppily even. You can even see that Tolkien himself takes full advantage of this with multiple meanings and origins of words in his books. What does "fundamentally" mean here? It means "kind of", "sort of", "in a way".

There is not just a huge difference in understanding of English use between the UK and the USA but between different regions of the UK itself. Many southerners are deeply offended to be called "love" and "darling" by total strangers when they come to my city, but they are not being patronised, they are being welcomed by being called such things (men call other men "love"). Unfortunately some fail to grasp that language use differs and they get numpty about it. Ho-hum, they usually clear off anyway when they realise houses are equally expensive up here...

I can see right away that it was obviously not content that was causing offence, as there simply was not the evidence for it. So it's Tone. Which is extremely worrying. Especially as I don't speak or use English in the same way as the Mods. Nor does everyone. Lots of people here from other cultures, age groups, backgrounds. How can we be careful of something as subtle as Tone? So davem was, ultimately, banned for being a Yorkshireman, and using English as a Yorkshireman does?

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by Saurreg

No one likes to have a damocles sword tangled over their heads held only by a string which we know not of tensile strength or tolerance.

That sums up my concerns. I read through the posts that were cited as the offensive statements which led to the ban, but the problem is that I'm seeing a disconnect between the description of over-the-line offensive content and what I'm reading. If that disconnect exists, how would anyone know if they'd unintentionally stepped over the line, or even after a warning, know that they were continuing to step over the line if the defined boundaries of offensive aren't registering on (a fairly significant number of) the members here? It does make me uneasy. And I think that's the reason the question keeps coming back.

No one wants to cause a rift in the board, and no one wants to confront the mods/admins of this site, who have done a great job keeping this site going for so long. But I don't want to be in the position of potentially being evaluated as having done something offensive and worthy of banning without knowing that I've done something wrong, and just saying that davem was misbehaving without having the process behind why he was felt to be out-of-line (even with the knowledge that there was extensive discussion) is making me feel like that is the situation, despite assurances that it is not the case.

[drigel]

Since I signed, I will say my piece here. It is that time of year for me - so pardon the football references. This is completely all my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.

Monday Morning Quarterback:
I have a good trouble radar - so I knew better than to post in the Lord of the Bible thread. I saw trouble (in general) coming on that thing a mile away. But, I am old enough to know myself well. My brain is wired strangely. I don't swim with the current. I always approach ideas with a perspective that is oddly stilted, with regards to the norm. That rubs people the wrong way, given certain subjects. I get it.

Instead of nuking Davem, that thread should have been closed. The seriousness of closing the thread, with an explanation by whoever was having the aforementioned pages of conversation would have been taken soberly by everyone, contributors or not. In addition, more detailed explanation given to the percieved offender would have helped the draconian cloak and dagger feeling that is currently happening. "...what we have heah, is a faylah... to communicate.."

I cant speak for anyone else, but I for sure would rather have seen that daggon thread go away than Davem.

The spirit is an elusive thing. With it, you feel alive as a newborn babe. Without it, your as dead as a rock.

Spirit Crushers - two types: debate and hospitality.
I loved this site because, lets face it - the works of JRRT are finite. A dead end. The author died decades ago. The only thing left is interpretation and debate. A debate requires taking a position. It's not a win or loose proposition, but, that position does require an offence and a defence in order to facilitate a debate. I don't condone ridicule of a personal nature, but I don't consider ridicule of a position necessarily out of bounds. It's naive (IMO) for anyone to enter in to a debate (especially if it's a subject that was the core of that thread), take a position (whether that position is in the popular majority or not), and not expect to get some of their little feelers hurt. Ive experienced that here and elsewhere. I know that through an exchange of ideas, and debate, my oddball perspective gets expanded - whether I agree with you or not. If it's facilitated properly, it's a debate, it's not a tea party (or at least that's not why I come here).

Walk it off, and get back in the game, or go home.

Another thing I loved about this site is the sense of community. We all have different careers (or not), and various levels of expertise (or not). We do all have a love of JRRT. I have 2 MBA's myself, but I knew that going here, all I needed was a degree of proficiency in JRRT (like most here - passionately reading - in my case yearly since 1975) to contribute to a conversation on the subject. In my mind we are all brothers and sisters.

Netiquette will dictate that if what I write isn't getting any proper response or reaction, then my contribution wasnt appropriate \ correct \ applicable, etc. But, if I feel that if my tone isnt just so, or my ideas weren't what those who are in control want to see, then I dont feel welcome. At that point, in many regards, it's game-over. The sword of Damocles is irrelevent, IMO. All I am doing is interrupting a closed conversation. Who wants to go out of his\her way to feel that?

/coach out

[Mithalwen]

To answer Menel and Folwren, this is not an attempt to rabble rouse or an ultimatum. It is a statement of collective unhappiness neither "enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly," and made after we discovered that many shared similar feelings and some had received responses that did not dispell their disquiet from private inquiries.

It was done because the Downs had become such an important part of our lives and it matters to us. We do not own the Downs, and that is fully acknowledged in our statement, nevertheless we have invested many hours of effort: we have no desire to destroy something we have helped to create.

I don't actually think this will get "hot" . Now we have said our piece I am sure we will try to get back to normal... or whatever the new normal is going to be. This statement was formed more in sorrow than in anger for most of us I think. For me certainly, sadness overwhelmed utterly any other emotion. I will not repeat what has been said more eloquently by others but since Drigel has mentioned the giraffe in the room, I will say that I will miss Davem desperately. I know he could be like a terrier with a rat with an argument and sometimes it was better to leave him to it ("You can always tell a Yorkshireman - but you can't tell him much"), but he had, has, a gift for getting to the essence. I know I was grateful for this ability to pick out what I was trying to say from the stream of consciousness ramble of what I actually said. His own thoughts were frequently an inspiration.

Mithalwen

[Raynor]

My opinion won't be the popular one. I am not concerned about how things are. For one thing, I saw the numerous public attempts made by the mods to calm things down; and when things didn't calm down, I just kept away from some threads - and that is very unpleasant, since this is supposed to be a place of communication, among other things; if I can't enjoy that here, the rest pretty much loses significance for me. I am not a fan of the powers that be; on other Tolkien sites, I went throat-to-throat with mods, admins or webmasters, in public at that, and I have earned the title of most rebellious. I don't think my perspective has changed; if I see something wrong, I will put it forward, regardless of the position of the one I challenge or of possible consequences to my membership, should it ever be the case. But in this situation, I believe the site policies have been observed in the interest of its members and that the mods will continue to do that.

[Celuien]

A reader of this thread suggested that I should add a few words to clarify my intentions with regard to what has been said here.

First, I want to make sure it's clear that I absolutely do not distrust or dislike the moderators or administrators of this site. They have done a wonderful job keeping the site running. I am grateful for all of their hard work and dedication and mean no disrespect by bringing up this issue. And so I'll take this moment to thank the Downs team for their time and effort.

I was also asked to clarify the goal of making this statement. Though I can't speak for everyone who signed, my own main issues were the following:

1. The previously mentioned wish to clear misunderstandings and any bad feeling lingering on the site.

2. Trying to gain a better understanding of why davem was banned to accomplish number 1 above. It appears that as much answer as can be given has been provided. I still disagree, but it's not my call to make, and it is not my intention or goal to argue over decisions that are already past.

3. I've always been taught that silence is agreement. If a major event such as davem's ban passed without some mention, it would be silent acceptance. I felt like I couldn't go on in good conscience without voicing an opinion. Watching him leave has made me feel like I'm standing at the Grey Havens, watching a ship fade into the horizon, and knowing all the while that something has been lost, never to be regained. I think that, sadly, we're all poorer for davem's absence.

This is not a call for his reinstatement. My understanding from davem is that even if the ban were lifted, he probably wouldn't want to return. And after all of the discussion that has taken place over this, I doubt anyone who has the ability to make the decision would be willing to reverse it. So asking for that would be futile and probably only cause more grief here. But neither could I pretend that this never happened and go on as before without saying something.

In closing, there's probably nothing else that I have to say. My personal goals have been met as much as they are likely to be. I'd like to thank the BW and all of the rest of the team for their patience in allowing this thread to exist and also specifically thank Aiwendil and Mormegil for their replies.

~*~ Celuien ~*~