Paul Begg's Point to Ponder

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Ally,

interestibng point. I like it, I am right now listening to the podcast, as I type this. But anyway...

I would say the following points - people are dominate and stiffle the views of newcombers, is not something that generally happens, for example, if someone new says they feel Stride was not a Ripper victim, some (if not plenty) of regulars will agree (or at least be open to this suggestion), will be interested in Stride threads and be generally helpful (at least that's my perception, maybe I'm wrong). Although such an area is potential controversial it is not divisive. Whereas Maybrick has been divisive from the minute he was found dead, and in Ripperology since the minute the diary was made public.

A problem I have with Maybrick discussion is that, in effect, most people are unwilling to discuss it - as though it will go away (maybe they blame the strong opinioned individuals but in this instance although the said people have strong opinions, most Ripperologists agree to some extent with them - or at least they agree with the underlying point of the anti diary side). It is this, not regulation that allows strong willed over opinionated people (like myself) to make their opinions appear to be the ones that count the most. This is entreanched over time, and down the line it makes it harder and harder to discuss or disent, it is in affect self inflicted, because a course of forgetting and ignoring has occured this allows people to become specialist in diary matters and in doing so have 'better' or more 'factual' opinions that they are in turn more rehearsed on. In allowing this to happen the view of new people who are fresh to the whole debate is easily stiffled and overwhelemd by the more entreanched and rehersed postions of the old heads of the subject. What regulation can prevent this?

Only denying the voices of those with the strongest and perhaps most reseached opinions on all sides to be able to make their point. But while the majority remain absent in their silence, the same thing can only then happen again. In other words it is only by denying the side which in my opinion is the most correct or strongest to put its strongest proponents forward and allowing the other side to keep its, that newcomers can have their opinon aired in detail. But why is that wrong, if no one else in the field cares enough to air their opinion. If the newbies were allowed to drive an endless discusion which was flowing in a counter way to majority thinking, would that be doing them any great favours?

Jenni

[Mike Covell]

This hard core stuff......hope its not anything rude Mike?

I am a married man, so I no longer get "Hardcore Stuff"!!

I am all for message boards as a medium for discussion of the case, and I am glad Stephen has re-introduced the Bloggs.

All this in my opinion can only help the case.

[Natalie Severn]

This hard core stuff......hope its not anything rude Mike?

[Cap'n Jack]

Well I managed a swear word tonight that escaped your dreadful dread.
I'm happy with that.

[Mike Covell]

Howard came up with the question and it was interesting to hear Paul Begg's answer.
I rarely go into "Diary world" for fear of being laughed at, even though I have read several of the diary related books, including the "Last Victim"
So I can understand if this puts of newbies.

Perhaps a set Maybrick area for the hardcore, and a set area for the newbies, who have questions or queries.

I know when I came to this board initially last year, people had mixed reactions to my Stephenson work, but to quote Maybrick, or at least his grave, "Tempus Omnia Revelat" and posters have now realised how serious I am about hard core research.

[Ally]

On the April 5th podcast, they were discussing the message boards. The question was posed as to whether the message boards were help or hindrance to JtR research in general. After stating ways in which forums were helpful in general, Paul stated some specifics in which it was hindrance. He pointed specifically to the Diary boards where a small group of people have so dominated the discussion that any newcomer was completely stifled coming in and is ridiculed. Now, I am happy to ridicule. There are certain people who just have got to be ridiculed for a variety of reasons. But I have also seen people who were stomped on without being given a fair and adequate chance, simply by virtue of coming on and voicing an unpopular or uninformed opinion.

Of course, there are some forums that are tightly regulated, tightly controlled and any dissenting opinion with the management will get your post deleted and sometimes your account banned. There are forums where you can't join unless your opinions and personal philosophies are in line with the POV of the forum moderator.

Too much moderation stifles creative debate. Too little moderation stifles creative debate. Is it actually possible to find a happy medium? I don't really think so.