How to make Ripperology better?

[Ally]

Since everyone is talking about the deplorable state and shaking their heads, let's hear it. How precisely can the field of Ripperology be made better. Other than killing off those we don't like, including me: What would you do? And specifically How to make Casebook better?

How to make it a more cooperative, shared effort and less dog-eat-dog?

[lynn cates]

motive

Hello Ally. Good idea for a thread.

Things would be more cooperative, I think, if our motives were to see the case solved. And, to be fair, many have that motive (or so I like to believe).

Of course, I have never found a reliable method for changing another's motivation. So for the few who think otherwise . . .

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

I think before determining a mechanism, it might be a good idea to determine what we would like to achieve.

Is it physical things - erecting memorial plaques on sites; getting difficult or unpublished sources and references into print. Is it working together to ensure that the Ripper case (as a serious field of study) has its advocates and a known place where they can be found? the Richard III Society (as an example) has done all that.

Or, not necessarily an alternative, but a different aspect, are we talking about a site for serious discussion away from the (what I term) Van Goghites and Sickerteenies; the newcomers and the "trolls"?

But is that not what jtr forums set out to do (I am not a member)? Is it not doing so?

In the post from which this thread originated, you asked:

what would your opinion be on a private board, visible and accessible only to serious researchers where ideas could be shared out of the public view, debated and expanded upon until all parties were satisfied and then those threads locked and published?

I see the danger of a separate discussion forum that it is bound to call forth cries of "elitist"! cabal! etc. That it deliberately sets out to exclude not to embrace.

How would one select participants? Published authors would exclude man of us. (It would have included Trevor, of course, and maybe Dale the Van Goghite.) What about a new poster who has studied the case for years and has much to contribute, but only just found Casebook? How would such a site be policed to ensure it achieved its objects.

In a sense, such a private board by its existence and visibility would already "publish" its insights and conclusions.

I was involved with Tolkien discussion forums for some years and one of them, I believe, published a book based on threads in their discussion fora. Is that the sort of thing you had in mind?

I am asking many questions, and lots of them may have ready answers. Basically, I would be interested in such a forum - but I think to work, it would need:

* to ensure that it did not detract from or compromise Casebook
* the support (and perhaps regular participation) of the respected authors - Evans, Rumbelow, Fido, Begg, etc who have been know to post on and interact with Casebook
* an agreed modus operandi
* a guiding "editor" or admin to police it (and a clear policy to avoid every victim related thread becoming Lechmere or a "is she a victim?" discussion - frankly I have no idea how you do it.
* rigid exclusion of personal attacks and posts that go off thread etc.

All in all a big job.

But could an additional "area" within Casebook work - a bit like an on-going dissertations section? That would ensure it remains within the home base, is not in competition etc etc.

All in all, I like the idea but am uncertain how to make it work/whether it could work.

Hope to hear from others on this.

Phil

[Phil H]

Two things occur to me - I have kept them out of the post above.

A) Threads on each murder/victim - maybe with sub-threads as required. Aim: to get the FACTS on record and agreed. So maybe an annotated fact sheet, which could be an authoritative resource for all Casebook users.

We started this on a Tolkien board with an attempt to do an annotated Lord of the rings before one was published.

It would allow discussion of points of detail and debate.

B) Discussion topics on which posts would be short essays in response which could then be gathered together to provide an easily accessible guide to the controversies of the topic.

Phil

[Ally]

Hello Ally. Good idea for a thread.

Things would be more cooperative, I think, if our motives were to see the case solved. And, to be fair, many have that motive (or so I like to believe).


Cheers.
LC

So those who may have genuine interest in the case, but recognizing reality, believe the case will never be solved, they are shut out for not having the right motive? Research purely for the sake of research is not sufficient motive?

[Phil H]

I think I'd almost certainly be excluded then - also for being careless with apostrophes!

Phil

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

Things would be more cooperative, I think, if our motives were to see the case solved. And, to be fair, many have that motive (or so I like to believe).

I thought the majority accept that we`ll never solve the case.

I`m certainly under the impression that those who are chasing the Ripper`s identity muddy the water.

[Ally]

I think before determining a mechanism, it might be a good idea to determine what we would like to achieve.

...
Or, not necessarily an alternative, but a different aspect, are we talking about a site for serious discussion away from the (what I term) Van Goghites and Sickerteenies; the newcomers and the "trolls"?

But is that not what jtr forums set out to do (I am not a member)? Is it not doing so?

Since anything I say on this subject will probably be seen as catty I realize I should refrain, but I would say that yes, that was what JTR attempted to do. But are newcomers and trolls the problem? I mean yes, there's no newcomers or trolls there, but it's still the same small group of people screaming "you're in the cabal" "you're an obnoxious twat". So does that improve Ripperology? And please don't think I am bagging on the forums, it's just as bad over here. Well maybe not obnoxious twat bad, but bad.

In the post from which this thread originated, you asked:

what would your opinion be on a private board, visible and accessible only to serious researchers where ideas could be shared out of the public view, debated and expanded upon until all parties were satisfied and then those threads locked and published?

I see the danger of a separate discussion forum that it is bound to call forth cries of "elitist"! cabal! etc. That it deliberately sets out to exclude not to embrace.

Yep. And that's what happened every time it's been tried.

* to ensure that it did not detract from or compromise Casebook
* the support (and perhaps regular participation) of the respected authors - Evans, Rumbelow, Fido, Begg, etc who have been know to post on and interact with Casebook
* an agreed modus operandi
* a guiding "editor" or admin to police it (and a clear policy to avoid every victim related thread becoming Lechmere or a "is she a victim?" discussion - frankly I have no idea how you do it.
* rigid exclusion of personal attacks and posts that go off thread etc.

All in all a big job.

Indeed. Any one volunteering??

But could an additional "area" within Casebook work - a bit like an on-going dissertations section? That would ensure it remains within the home base, is not in competition etc etc.

It could be done. It would depend on what people wanted to use it for and how they wanted to use it.

[mklhawley]

In order to make Ripperology better, we must keep our eye on the ball. In this case, the ball is an effort to build upon 'reliable knowledge'. When I first heard about Ripperology, I was happily surprised with seeing a community of researchers and writers attempting to do just that.

Sincerely,

Mike

[jmenges]

Since anything I say on this subject will probably be seen as catty I realize I should refrain, but I would say that yes, that was what JTR attempted to do. But are newcomers and trolls the problem? I mean yes, there's no newcomers or trolls there, but it's still the same small group of people screaming "you're in the cabal" "you're an obnoxious twat". So does that improve Ripperology? And please don't think I am bagging on the forums, it's just as bad over here. Well maybe not obnoxious twat bad, but bad.

Hey, the obnoxious twat is a member of this site too.

JM

[Hunter]

Hello Ally. Good idea for a thread.

Things would be more cooperative, I think, if our motives were to see the case solved. And, to be fair, many have that motive (or so I like to believe).

Well, that leaves me out. Never had an interest in anything but a greater understanding of people and events.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Ally,
I think that there is room for some kind of, lets call it this for the sake of argument Ripper research club, who put their brains together to find out about something or other connected to case, whatever it be. Discus it then published the results that they all agree upon (or not)

Jenni

[Ally]

Would you want a private place to discuss the details or visible to the public but poster restricted?

[Cogidubnus]

For my part I like the site as it is - ok, you get the occasional troll, but you also get new people like me learning as we go...and generally we all help each other out or argue things through together (usually in a reasonably civilised manner).

In short, I rather like it that this place is a broad church, and fear that if it's altered too drastically we may lose more than we gain...

That's my two-penn'orth anyway

All the best

Dave

[Ally]

My question also would be, if membership is closed entirely, how do you ever grow your ranks and encourage new members/future researchers? Or do you just wait for someone to prove themselves worthy on another board and then poach them?

I think a system, whatever it is would have to have both open and closed parts to work. Just mulling in my head though.