As I mentioned in the thread “Customize the new topic area?”, the FAQ might not be doing as well as it could to welcome potential posters while establishing what this here place is about. Reading it over a couple more times gave me a good feel for why it’s not working out right.
Please pardon the uninspired layout, but I wanted to concentrate on content. I took out all of the sarcasm and most of the in-jokes, as well as the repeated use of the word “we” – why you say “we”, kemosabe? – which were really giving off an impression of an established clique and rules for admission. I tried to dwell less on undesirable stuff and more on what is apropos here.
Please let me know what you think. While I think that changes need to be made if this new forum is going to be successful, please don’t read it as the Will of the Moderator – I think it stands nicely on its own merits, and that’s what I’d like to see it evaluated with.
Wow! Thanks for going to the trouble Rich. I like your suggestions, like taking out the we, and making the “no commercial posts” clear.
Other things I don’t quite agree with: the repeated mention of “academic” or the narrowing of the definition to pure drop. A discussion of the Bothy Band or Lunasa’s music wouldn’t strike anyone as OT, I think. In fact, I still think it is a good idea not really to define the type of music that should be discussed here: If we can just limit the “whistler jokes”, “for sale” or “Got my new instrument” posts, we are in good shape.
Why don’t get some more feedback, and then I would over to pull it together on the basis of your draft.
Other things I don’t quite agree with: the repeated mention of “academic” or the narrowing of the definition to pure drop.
Well, it is academic – the differences between the scope of this forum and the whistle forum are essentially what one would encounter doing a performance degree at a university instead of taking lessons in the back of a music store. “Academic” doesn’t mean “bad”. (I’d venture that “academic” means “interesting”, but there goes that snooty elitism again.)
For the most part, the stuff that’s on-topic is musicology, theory (in the “jazz theory” sense, not the “classical theory” sense – make a transcription, pull it apart), history, and professional performance – that’s essentially a music degree syllabus!
Why don’t get some more feedback, and then I would over to pull it together on the basis of your draft.
Sounds good!
Cheers,
-Rich
[ This Message was edited by: rich on 2002-08-09 09:52 ]
I think Rich’s proposed version is very good. It defuses the clubby feel and addresses some of the things we hadn’t thought of. I don’t mind the use of the word academic - people will soon see that the tone of the posts is not overly anal. Go for it!
While not restricted to ITM, the following sites do contain substantial ITM compositions, and, in their own right, they are truly excellent sources for all sorts of folk-type music. You may want to check them out and consider adding them to the FAQ revision.
Thanks for the suggestions Rich. I agree with the version and the idea of a more defined explanation. The only thing I would add is “threadjacking”
Suggestion:
Please do not threadjack. Threadjacking is the practice of stealing another’s thread by posting off-thread replies such that the original topic becomes diluted or lost. It’s disrespectful to the original poster and doesn’t allow others to see your idea if the thread name doesn’t reflect the discussion.
Still, some great discussions are created from off-thread replies. If something interesting does come up, then introduce yourspin-off discussion or idea by starting a new thread.
Oh, my! Are you threadjacking by bringing up the idea of threadjacking? I guess not, as it is your idea for an improvement to the FAQ, which is clearly the subject matter of the thread.
