Barbelith Underground > Policy & Help

I think this is a key point underpinning people's perceptions here:
> In fact, Saltation doesn't seem to be looking for an interrogative discussion of the wider issues relating to the phenomenon as he posits it.

Actually, I'm very up for a discussion of the wider issues.

But, that was not the thread to do it in.
That thread has a very specific scope, a very specific question.

I would have expected someone who wanted to re-construct the entire basis that spawned the question, to express their concerns then suggest that we create another thread to deconstruct/reconstruct/laugh at/nitpick/criticise/improve that basis framework. Bishbosh, 2mins later and we're away with two related threads discussing wildly different aspects of the same underlying theme.

See, if we don't, then we have two orthogonal logical threads intertwingled in the same physical thread.
Each rots the other.

An example: you can have a discussion of what type of tea you like, just on its taste; and you can have a discussion of how Ethical it is for you to purchase the various teas in your weekly shop, based on their production methods. Each individual can then choose which tea they actually buy, based on their own individual beliefs and trade-offs of pleasure vs conscience, strength of taste preference vs. strenght of ethics reaction.
But a mingled discussion requires that you decide as a group an Absolute hierarchy of each tea based on both taste and ethics, even though each tea has different taste and ethics-consequence for each and every single participant. Both discussions are clouded by the other.

Here's an example of why I think that's strongly counter-productive: a barbeloid in philosophical/metaphysical mood decides to go into the Head Shop to ponder threads ze knows will be of that theme. On reading the first post, Odin whispers in hir ear a flash of blinding inspiration, and ze leaps out of the bath (thank god for laptops and wifi) and runs down the road screaming "Eureka! Fuck it's cold!" After some negotiation with the police ze returns to the laptop and goes to end of thread to post hir idea/contribution. But finds the last 10 posts to be deep and dark meta-discussions about whether the entire thread even has any point or not. Two mostly likely outcomes at that point: 1/ not wanting to look stupid or off-topic, ze won't post hir idea. 2/ having got distracted by the meta-framework discussion, ze will either stay distracted or decide that maybe ze should wait until the whole meta-thing is decided first before adding hir idea about the original question, so ze won't post hir idea.
Result: the specific-question thread is not advanced.

I've had a long hard think about the points re "Conversation" vs "Head Shop" just provided.
First, I'll reassure you I didn't regard it as a "relegation". But since the forums have definite and diverging goals and the one fit and the other didn't, I felt it inappropriate. Second, after chewing over the Volume point made above re Conversation, I still feel it's better to have an Anthropology/Psychology/Sociology thread in the Head Shop. Conversation's volume actually counts against it for this type of discussion, as slower threads too quickly drop way back in the history.
So on balance, I think I'm still coming down on the side of preferring to see it in Head Shop.
I think the thread will benefit from it.
At the moment, it's so far down the list only those who've posted to it are likely to ever know about it/find it. No new viewpoints are ever likely, as of right now. I see that as negative for its purpose.

But I'd be interested to read any Mods' thoughts on whether they think this post's reasoning is valid.

A KEY POINT HOWEVER:
if it IS moved, I'll create another matching thread to encompass the additional meta-question. And crosslink each to the other so newcomers will see them both. Then both discussions can proceed side-by-side: those interested in both can watch both; those only interested in one can appreciate it without the threadrot.
And if the meta-thread suddenly invalidates the specific-qn thread by finding a better way, then that's an improved result. And if the specific-qn thread throws up an idea that feeds into the meta-thread, then that's a better way. And it may be that BOTH the meta-thread AND the specific-qn thread end up with a better result: it's quite possible we arrive at a new Framework which still has within it the need for the concept which the specific-qn thread has found a good word for. Everybody wins! "Eusqueeeka!"

e.g.
Title: "Meta: Framework underpinning c.f. thread "Another better word than "Myth" "
Subject: "Thread discussing the Framework underlying the question asked in the "Word->Myth?" thread. Is it valid? Is it correct? Can it be improved? Is it rubbish?"

edit: i posted this an hour or so ago, just checked on heading out and saw it was missing. so reposting it. sorry if it ends up a doublepost.

Mod request