Originally Posted by
Titanium Dome
The old off topic forum served a number of useful and graceful purposes. It wasn't all bad; in fact, it was mostly good.
It gave Don a place to post some of his interesting photographic essays, which I truly enjoyed. It was a main platform for our brother northwood to post some truly amazing pictures, including one of the best photos I've ever seen. Sadly, now it is lost to me. It offered me and others the chance to create small threads of beauty and interest and entertainment through words and pictures.
Yes there were a few photos that for cultural or political reasons, a few members raised concerns over. IMO these were gross over-reactions and demonstrated an inclination that runs through American culture that isn't so pleasant: quick judgment and cultural intolerance. Now that's a topic for off topic, eh?
In addition, OT would be an appropriate venue for edgewound's and magnet3's happy news. It would be the right place for Scott and me to rev up a discussion on bumper cars, hot dogs, and summer nights. It would be a good place for Heather to show the backyard in bloom, or Jim to tell about his grandkids, or Ian about his last (or next) trip to the States, or folks to talk about their dogs, cats, fish, cars, etc.
This was at least 50% or more of the old OT in terms of content, though not necessarily in terms of post. The conflict centered around a very limited set of topics which generated petty, vindictive, defensive, and mean-spirited streams of posts that really ramped up the post count in those threads.
I looked at northwood's photo essays countless times, but didn't add a post every time I looked. Yet, some inane topic like Anna ..... (I can't even write it) death seemed to attract posts like flies to a spoiling carcass on a Tennessee road in summer. I probably visited that putrid thing four times, posted a few, then abandoned it and wouldn't care if it were closed and removed.
But I dislike the "baby with the bath water" approach that shovels that thread, Don's photos, northwood's work, the anti-Bush stuff, etc., etc. all into to one trash bag and sets it by the curb.
That, my friends, is overreaction, and it strips the site of perspective and depth.
Why do we need perspective and depth, when all we should be talking bout is Lansing Heritage and nothing more?
Well, first because we already tacitly acknowledge that we need it by hosting several non-Lansing forums. Sure, we dress it up by calling them Lansing-related or forum issues, but that really is just a way to dress up the fact that they're off the main topic yet we still REALLY want to talk about them.
Second, we are all humans with depth and perspective in our personalities. The notion that we can parcel ourselves out and seek out different sites for each element of our personalities is a neat logical trick, but in practice not so neat to execute. It has the emotional and psychological effect of stripping us into discrete pieces which we try to address in the different venues where we present one-dimensinal, cardboard images of ourselves.
Here's my Lansing face. Here's my picture taking face. Here's my music face. Here's my woodworking face. Here's my movies face. Etc.
We have the ability to make the site a representation of the reality of Jim Lansing's legacy. It was brilliant, visionary, complicated, conflicted at times, filled with family and hopes and dreams, technical, musical, cinematic, rough, troubled, and real. In other words, it had depth and perspective.
If the main problem is moderation or the workload, then someone needs to address the simple solution that's been floated here often: more moderators. It seems as though there's a resistance to a simple solution.
Scott can't/shouldn't shoulder this alone. It's unreasonable. If others have their hands full managing their current duties, then find additional help. But let's not have the impression that moderators belong to a finite group, that there's no possible way to increase the numbers, or that it's a special club that no one else gets to join serve as excuses for inaction on this.
I won't single anyone out in public, but I think a number of us could identify one or two or three members whom we believe could add to those ranks.
So, my vote is "yes."
