Guidelines for Theories (Archive)

[LostInWilderness]

There are plenty of places to discuss Lost on this board, but Theories should be a little more focused. Because theories have been a little loose lately, we have updated the posting guidelines with:

What is a theory?
A theory both advances relevant questions and offers answers for those questions, backed up by evidence from the show or references. These questions and answers may satisfy some and irritate others. They may open up more questions or spur exploration of lines of thought not previously considered. An idea need not explain every facet of the show in order to be considered a theory for forum purposes. But the idea should have some relevance to some aspect of the show, purport to explain it, and be grounded in some aspect of what we think we know. Mere questions, observations, and what-ifs, without some sort of further development or analysis, likely will not be considered as meeting the criteria for T&S theories.

ETA: 2/6/06 - Theories that use the webmaze info require a WMT (webmaze theory) tag similar to the ST (spoiler theory) tag currently used.
ETA2: 25/6/06 - WMT tag not required any more. WMT threads are started in the TLE-T forum. - mav

[lacenaire]

I would like to follow up on LIW's explanation opening a discussion about what kind of theory is suitable for the show, according to the information the writers are giving us.

1. First, the book references, recommended directly by the creative team:
- The Stand, Stephen King
- The Dark Tower Series, Stephen King
- The Queen's Gambit, Walter Tevis (recommended by Javi)
- Othello, Shakespeare
- A Wrinkle in Time, Madeleine L'Engle
- The Lord of the Flies, William Golding

Now these books are not SCI-FI books IMO, there's almost no high-tech gadgets in them. They are all Fantasy books and basically treat this points:
- Group dynamics.
- Hidden conspiracies
- Fight Good vs Evil

2. What we've already seen on the island.
- THe Black ROck.
- A big plane.
- A small plane.
- Danielle and her gear.
- Dharma facilities.
- The "Piece Corps" people and their gear.
- Ethan and his gear.
- Whispers.
- Black Smoke.
- A raft.
- A small inland boat.
- Something magnetic covered with concrete.
- A giant Stobor.

None of these elements support the presence of a high-tech power on the island. Even Dharma's stuff is outdated. Ethan and "The Peace Corps People" are basically using their hands and primitive weapons to fight. So far the deadliest weapon around is fear, and the dynamite (dangerous to anyone around due to its decay)..

How this people can make some of us believe they are capable of travelling through time and space, to use advanced mental powers, etc... is a mystery to me.

This is only a point of view and I might change it at any time mind you, lol.

[Hurley4Prez]

Thanks you LIW & Lac. T&S has been reading like General lately, and not much use was made of the "pre-theory" board, which I thought was an excellent idea. I'm sure within the next few episodes we should get plenty more ammo for new theories, and it would be nice to keep the board focused for easier reading and reference.
Thanks, guys.

[LostInWilderness]

I decided to sticky this for a while, even though the updated guidelines can be read here. (http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7403)

I wonder if this is invisible since I stickied it. I'm going to free it and keep it bumped on the first page. ;)

[LostInWilderness]

Bump.

[spooky]

YAY! :D

Carry on.

[NeillT006]

Much needed bump.

[SareEru]

I hope this means the inane, frivolous posting in T&S will stop! Most of that nonsense belongs in General Discussion.

[lostmio]

Maybe there should be an after-school forum where the teens can mix and match posts w/o interference from adults? Obviously their brains are fried after long days in the classroom, and it's too much to expect them to read guidelines and think before they post.

They wouldn't be restricted to just posting in that forum but ones who wander over here could be told their posts are subject to rigorous interrogation and ruthless slapping w/o any special consideration for the author's tender age.

[athywithak]

Yay for the new rules! I have been missing T&S of old, but love the new feature that let's me check who posted in a thread before I open n scroll...

Yay for LiW for floating this, too, I think it does help get noticed - how about a sneaky title too?

Er, getting all age-ist there won't help, LostMio...and SareEru, I don't enjoy lame posts in GD either, actually...

but I kinda think things around here are looking WAY up.

K

[Warthawg1]

I know I hear birds singing in the background, and I hear tell world hunger is decreasing

[NeillT006]

I know I hear birds singing in the background, and I hear tell world hunger is decreasing

I see skies of blue and clouds of white
The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world


.

[lacenaire]

http://www.freemars.org/jeff/WondWrld/WondWrld.htm

[NeillT006]

http://www.freemars.org/jeff/WondWrld/WondWrld.htm


Oh, yeah.

[Crandyman]

bump...so people will read it

[Gambit980]

Still think we don't need categories?

[LostInWilderness]

I've become pretty dead set against subcatagories in T&S. I really like our balance of structure and freedom with the current forums. T&S, like GD, got out of control in the excitement right after the move, but I think we have GD back under control, and we'll do the same in T&S.

I haven't caught up on all the theories yet, so if duplicates get posted tonight, please provide links so I can check them out.

[clayseason1]

I wonder if this is invisible since I stickied it. I'm going to free it and keep it bumped on the first page

*bump*

[TarTaker]

This is only a TV show. Why don't yall get a life ans stop worring about where certain post are put.

[Chance Gardener]

Well tartee, just because you don't care where someone puts their post doesn't mean we should have to tolerate that for ourselves.

Oh, and thanks for the flash that it's only a TV show. My grasp on reality had slipped dangerously loose there, much like your sense of decorum has slipped from yours.

[northernlightsabove]

My grasp on reality had slipped dangerously loose there

maybe that's cause it's not reality you were grasping Chance...

[annaislynn]

umm..plot thickens

[TarTaker]

i was just trying to ruffle some panties. i guess you were the first.

I love this show.

[LostInWilderness]

Bumping for the edit about WMT tag in initial post.

[magnoliasouth]

One problem I would like to point out. The T&S Guidelines (http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7403) states:Please don't forget to go through the threads and/or drabauer's LOST Theories Index before reposting a theory that has been mentioned before. The problem is the link there. It's a broken link, so it's not helpful at all.

Also there's this...There is currently a thread which indexes all the major theories discussed on this board; you might be able to find one that's exactly like or very closely related to your theory there.Where is that thread? There is no mention on the location of it, and if it still exists I would think a link to it would be helpful. If the thread no longer exists, then I suggest this part be removed.

You see, from a newbie's standpoint, it is very frustrating to try and follow the rules if the rules point to things that don't exist or are nearly impossible to find. I mean a newbie is a newbie. Believing that a newbie will use the search function just to find what is mentioned here is unrealistic. It won't be done, period.

I know a lot of posters from way back when are a little cynical about these things, thinking that most newbies don't even read the stuff that is right there and accessible, but please do not clump everyone into that not-reading-before-posting-category.

I for one did a lot of reading before posting. I also know of two others, that I have referred here, who have also done the same. Even if only one in ten reads it, I think it's worth the time to make it correct.

[LostInWilderness]

It died in the move. One of the main reasons drabauer created the index, besides she's just cool like that, is that the ezsucks search engine, well..., sucked. The vB search engine doesn't suck, so the driving reason behind the index is gone, and we haven't bothered with it since we moved.

[NeillT006]

But Magnoials' point is a good one. There are a number of vestigial items in the board that probably ought to be modified/deleted or explained. I run into them myself from time to time but, typical of me, never take time to record what or where they are. This one (Doc's index) is a good example, however.

N.

[LostInWilderness]

Yes there are, and soon as we get paid, we'll jump on that. ;)

[NeillT006]

You get the cool subnic.

What more do you want?

N.

[lacenaire]

Dismissing Dharma Distraction.

I would have mine say: Not buying Dharma's Antics.

[Gambit980]

I tell yah this place is dying from some kind of summary page. My god 3 months 51 pages to a theroy, and we have to read all of it to stay in the know. Has there been any thought to creating abstracts for theories that are over 30 pages. It would be simple enought to do. Once's someones theory has gotten enough reponses, A mod could send them a PM to summarize their theory. Then this summary is presented in a locked thread so people can look over all the theories our board has to offer. Now I know alot of people have gone, and are not here to summarize, but you may call for voulnters to do so. I know this would make my journey to the T&S and the board for that matter much more enjoyable.

Just a thought

Also this would help bolster better posters to the board. We have a lot of people who come and visit this site, I think any poster would welcome the oportunity to have there theory posted in a section strictly for reading and not disscussion. A reward for all the hard work they put into the theories as well. Mind you the summary would be that a summary and not the whole first post. I really hope others see what I am trying to accomplish here

[LostInWilderness]

That's an interesting idea, Gambit. We'll have to rethink things over the summer, and maybe we can do something like that.

[NeillT006]

I agree, in principle, with this.

The Doc's prior indexing efforts sort of played this role: an organized brief summarization of theories. While the intial reaction of most was that the much improved search function made such an approach less necessary, it would be a helpful feature to have some sort of theories index/digest.

As far as individual summaries are concerned, one would do well to take a look at what Lac was able to do in Freud/Matrix.

N.

[Gambit980]

It's sad to say but summer is one 11 hours away :( then we have to wait until october 3rd for the DVD release.

In thinking more about this Idea, I don't think we should include every theroy out there. So it wouldn't be an index. For instance the mods would have to choose main themes and then have one of the theorist of that main theme write up a summary of the theory. For instance there may be several all of The Characters are Connnected theories that describe who they are connected to and how they are connected in diffrent ways. The mod would have to decide which Idea had the most merit(i.e. reply post, or more cohesive which of course is a matter of opinon) the mod would then ask the author of said post to write up a summary for the Theories page( Because we couldn't include specuatations in this page).

I just want to make sure we don't make another index, because we don't need that some much as theory summary page for what our site has to offer. So it doesn't need to have a theory summary for every theory out there, but the main theories on our board. I think what makes something worthy to be on that page is something that needs to be discussed amoung eveyone. I also think it would be a great asset to the board as well as Lost fans everywhere.

[Chance Gardener]

actually, most of my theories that I've posted are a fairly concise summary of the contents of the threads themselves.

Perhaps it isn't the structure of posting that needs repair but rather the mindset of the posters when generating their initial posts. An excellent example of this is the monstrosity of the queerly plasticized "theory."

It is not as much a theory as it is a catch basin for all manner of wiki'd crap to sit and ferment in an oxygenless environment, in a manner similar to gangrene in flesh. There is no clear theory in such threads. It is the Tyson/McDonald's chicken nugget approach: parts is parts. It may be edible, but that doesn't make it nutritional.

That is the largest problem that has consistenly afflicted T&S.
Not the lack of or addition of subforums. Not more rules. Not forcing posters to "play nice."

No, the problem is and always has been allowing posters to post poorly thought out, poorly written, or poorly supported theories and then patting yourselves on the back saying 'look at how many posts we get. We are something now.' I've said this before and I will say it again: there was a time that THIS board was one that was listened to. THIS board held theories that sought to parse out the plots and deduce the directions the show was headed in.

Instead, it has turned into a wasteland for socially inept failed physic/psychology students and a poor man's blog for individual geek angst.

The few threads out there worthy of attention are shunted to the rear, simply because expectations of reasoned thought have been curtailed or punished for having such expectations. I remember when the Fuselage was considered to be the cesspit of theorizing. Now it's the leader of what this board used to own.

You allow crap in the interests of being democratic, then all you get is short wheat. Nothing stands out in such a system. And eventually things get smaller and smaller and all you'll be left with is dirt.

[yung23]

[No personal attacks - LIW]

[Chance Gardener]

that's revisionist excuses and your thread sucks crap through a firehose and sprays it all over everything like an uncontrolled housepet.

Go ahead and prove me wrong.
You've never been able to put your "theory" into a concise summation because it is nothing more than slaughterhouse pop culture offal crap stacked high.

It isn't a theory; it's a blog for the ramblings of an undisciplined mind no longer on ritalin.

[yung23]

BS. I have made MANY summaries, and each time I do it, it gets better. I have more and more connections with the show the further it goes.

what has any of your threads predicted ?

if smokie is made out of fermions in the end, I'm gonna do what I said I would.
take the pickle out of your butt chance. and then go get some therapy for that anger too.
because I recognize it.

PS. I meant no offence to you when I labelled it the HOMOplasmate thread.

[TheBigCat]

Alright, Chance, Yung, give it a rest, guys. Please. I'm hot, tired, and short on patience right now so I don't want to have to break it up if you two start in with the handbags at 3 paces.

[RichardR]

actually, most of my theories that I've posted are a fairly concise summary of the contents of the threads themselves.

Perhaps it isn't the structure of posting that needs repair but rather the mindset of the posters when generating their initial posts. An excellent example of this is the monstrosity of the queerly plasticized "theory."

It is not as much a theory as it is a catch basin for all manner of wiki'd crap to sit and ferment in an oxygenless environment, in a manner similar to gangrene in flesh. There is no clear theory in such threads. It is the Tyson/McDonald's chicken nugget approach: parts is parts. It may be edible, but that doesn't make it nutritional.

That is the largest problem that has consistenly afflicted T&S.
Not the lack of or addition of subforums. Not more rules. Not forcing posters to "play nice."

No, the problem is and always has been allowing posters to post poorly thought out, poorly written, or poorly supported theories and then patting yourselves on the back saying 'look at how many posts we get. We are something now.' I've said this before and I will say it again: there was a time that THIS board was one that was listened to. THIS board held theories that sought to parse out the plots and deduce the directions the show was headed in.

Instead, it has turned into a wasteland for socially inept failed physic/psychology students and a poor man's blog for individual geek angst.

The few threads out there worthy of attention are shunted to the rear, simply because expectations of reasoned thought have been curtailed or punished for having such expectations. I remember when the Fuselage was considered to be the cesspit of theorizing. Now it's the leader of what this board used to own.

You allow crap in the interests of being democratic, then all you get is short wheat. Nothing stands out in such a system. And eventually things get smaller and smaller and all you'll be left with is dirt.

I absolutely agree.

[RichardR]

BS. I have made MANY summaries, and each time I do it, it gets better. I have more and more connections with the show the further it goes.

what has any of your threads predicted ?

if smokie is made out of fermions in the end, I'm gonna do what I said I would.
take the pickle out of your butt chance. and then go get some therapy for that anger too.
because I recognize it.

PS. I meant no offence to you when I labelled it the HOMOplasmate thread.

I mean no offense what so ever in what I wll say. I afforded you a lot of time reading your "theory" as I extended you the courtesy of assuming a certain amount of connection to the show as I read. The thing about writing things you expect people to read is that it's worth their time reading it, gaining insight or enlightenment from what is read.
Your theory is so far out there that by default it could not be considered probable in the least. But I've told you this several times so it's no surprise. It's not really productive in terms of the show to follow it. It's not really conscientious in terms of continously advertising it to the unsuspecting as a highly probable theory.

[Chance Gardener]

a response simply agreeing was deleted?

good grief.

I've known threads and individual responses get terminated for disagreeing, but for agreeing??

I challenge (in support of this thread's main precis by the way) the nature of posting in this forum, for which I get attacked (which I don't mind but had I done it I'd be gettin' all kinds of grief for it - remember, it's supposed to be the post and not the poster that gets such treatment) and the response that gets deleted was the one that simply agreed with my position on the responsibilities of posting.

C'mon Cat, you're better than that.

[TheBigCat]

Rightly or wrongly, Chance, you and Yung are among those given just a wee bit more leeway. Has to do quite a bit with the fact that both of you have been here as long as you have, and that you are the two main proponents of a pair of daiametrically opposed schools of thought as regards theorizing.

If you guys wish to engage in a spirited debate over the merits and flaws of each system, wonderful. If you guys want to start swapping insults in the course of the debate the natural response from the staff is to grant that slight latitude for the reasons mentioned earlier, (Note I said "slight") but in that instance we have no choice but to erect a cordon to insure that nobody else gets involved.

[Mysterious Mike]

:popcorn:




Second's out
Round 2
Ding Ding

[RichardR]

Rightly or wrongly, Chance, you and Yung are among those given just a wee bit more leeway. Has to do quite a bit with the fact that both of you have been here as long as you have, and that you are the two main proponents of a pair of daiametrically opposed schools of thought as regards theorizing.

If you guys wish to engage in a spirited debate over the merits and flaws of each system, wonderful. If you guys want to start swapping insults in the course of the debate the natural response from the staff is to grant that slight latitude for the reasons mentioned earlier, (Note I said "slight") but in that instance we have no choice but to erect a cordon to insure that nobody else gets involved.

So I can't point out that yung's theory has no merit?

[TheBigCat]

I'd rather you didn't in this thread until there's an agreement between these two gentlemen to keep things civil. Just pull up a chair next to MM and ask for some of that popcorn.

[RichardR]

I'd rather you didn't in this thread until there's an agreement between these two gentlemen to keep things civil. Just pull up a chair next to MM and ask for some of that popcorn.

Fair enough.

[TheBigCat]

Oh...and as soon as these two shake hands and agree in words to keep things civil I will undelete your posts. I just don't want this thread turning into a partisan debate, because that's not what it is for. Read the header: New Guidelines for T&S

[Son of Locke]

*hears muffled commotion through closed doors*
*peeks in*
*pulls chair up to recently erected cordon*
"Dude, this is like, better than AVP!!!"
"Dude, totally."
:popcorn:

[NeillT006]

Oh...and as soon as these two shake hands and agree in words to keep things civil I will undelete your posts. I just don't want this thread turning into a partisan debate, because that's not what it is for. Read the header: New Guidelines for T&S

Mom?? Is that you????

N.

[TheBigCat]

:rolleyes:

[Blackhawk]

Oh...and as soon as these two shake hands and agree in words to keep things civil I will undelete your posts. I just don't want this thread turning into a partisan debate, because that's not what it is for. Read the header: New Guidelines for T&S

Then maybe we should start another thread in T&S specifically for childish posturing. That way everyone can participate instead of just a select few.

[LostInWilderness]

This is funny stuff. Everybody can chime in on the subject at hand - suggested changes to the guidelines. If anybody wants to critique yung's theory, do it in that thread instead of here.

Thanks.

[NeillT006]

With all due respect, and not that Chance needs my help (except maybe to pull out that pickle), but I don't think the specific object of Chance's comments was yung's thread as much as it was an approach to theories which is merely exemplified by yung's work.

I believe that what Chance has to say has value, but the value is lessened unless he has the latitude to cite a few examples along the way.

I, for one, am interested in Chance's input. If it ruffles a few feathers along the way, so be it.

N.

[island_maverick]

Chance may have had some valid points, generically, when it comes to T&S. But citing yung's thread in the manner he did was unecessary, too personal (presumably the intention) and debased the argument.

[TheBigCat]

Then maybe we should start another thread in T&S specifically for childish posturing. That way everyone can participate instead of just a select few.

Totally not the point. If anybody wants to start a thread for childish posturing, fine. Well, not really fine. We do tend to discourage such things unofficially, but childishness is not something we can prevent people from engaging in.

But the problems here aren't childish attitude. We are dealing with personal attacks and preventing escalation.

[Suil Liath]

I really like the idea of a Childish Posturing thread.

[cccourt]

This is a post as a fan of the show, and a follower of this board...NOT as a moderator. So don't anyone construe this is a decision...it's just a comment:

There are varied levels of interest in this show, there are varied levels of abilities to express one's self, and there are varied levels of members' educational level.

We may kid someone for a typo, but we don't make fun of someone's grammar and spelling. We have the freedom to choose whose posts we read, which to ignore, and which to follow.

Personally, I seek to find something redeeming in each post I read or skim. I look past mechanics or blathering. I cannot look past repetition. That just irritates the dickens out of me. Even with repetitions, I give many the benefit of the doubt as I realize not everyone has been here since day one...or even year one.

The word to live by here is tolerance. The key to our sanity is to disregard posts which each of us can perceive as insipid. Another reader may groove on what I find inferior.

Live and let live. If our High Priestess wants mods to start editing, just give the word. Who among us could be that judgmental?
c3

[Brian]

The word to live by here is tolerance. The key to our sanity is to disregard posts which each of us can perceive as insipid. Another reader may groove on what I find inferior.
Very well said, C3. I agree completely.

[LostInWilderness]

With all due respect, and not that Chance needs my help (except maybe to pull out that pickle), but I don't think the specific object of Chance's comments was yung's thread as much as it was an approach to theories which is merely exemplified by yung's work.
Not much need at all. I thought my comments and edits made that clear. Chance's criticism of yung's thread in the context of debating the T&S guidelines was perfectly acceptable since he attacked only the post, not the poster, and that's why I didn't edit it. As I posted before, any further discussion of yung's thread belongs in yung's thread.

[Chance Gardener]

Actually, I believe I kept it civil cat. I didn't insult yung. I used his thread as a rather glaring example of what was actually in support of what a moderator said earlier in THIS thread about summarizing and clarifying threads.

The fact that you deleted posts for the simple fact they agreed or disagreed with my or yung's posts, when those responses were ON TOPIC, is a problem. There was nothing uncivil about Richard's response.

There was nothing uncivil in my pointing out that yung's thread is an "everything but the kitchen sink" thread. Now, I'll grant that in the past few days, some attempt has been made to create a bullet point list of the contents - which should be put at the beginning in my opinion - but there still is no real theory there but rather a blog of ideas.

And before we trot out the "keep it in the specific thread" arguments, there is little to no tolerance in threads such as that one (and there are dozens of others out there right now) that tolerate no dissension or even questioning of the thread.

Good grief, as arrogant as I am, even I don't do that. I'll argue my side, I'll push back hard even. But if a poster generates a challenge to my idea, I should have the guts to defend my thoughts by the evidences presented in the show.

Because this isn't a sociology, eschatology, psychology online campus course website. At its core, it is meant to figure out the plot points of LOST and with those deductions, attempt to explain the mysteries not revealed yet. Can 'theories' like yung's be entertaining or informative. Hell yea they can. But I again go back to my parts is parts analogy. You may have a whole bunch of chicken wings in there, but that doesn't mean you got a whole chicken.

A thread can have lots and lots of ideas stuffed into, informative, evocative, entertaining. That doesn't make it a theory and THAT is my argument. Again, that isn't meant to be an attack on yung's theory per se. If I'd wanted to do that, I would. In fact, in the beginning, I did challenge it. I never got a response other than the 'shut the <snip> up if you don't like it go elsewhere' crap such theories nearly always spew forth. I call it the modern day version of the emperor has no clothes and his attendants response when the kid points it out syndrome.

In this thread, you asked for input on what would improve and streamline T&S posting. I gave a civil response, using examples present on page 1. I did not respond in kind when I was "dealt with" in the manner that I was. I rather suspect some were hoping I would so that I could be more summarily "dealt with" so you could level the wheatfield as it were.

C3's response I can understand. Her tolerance is admirably greater than mine when it comes to posts. If anything humbles me, it is examples like hers that do so. But tolerance should only be extended so far in my opinion and after that, it is highly reasonable to ask a theorist to summarize, clarify, and self-critique their threads and when challenged, to support their thoughts by defending their reasoning, their ideas.

I mean, if I can do it in my threads, such as the Stobor is Dave one I did, why can't everyone else do it? I responded to challenges to this idea. I gave reasons based on the show. I used that as the basis of my arguments. In the end, I got folks to consider the idea as likely and some folks got me to consider that I am probably wrong with this idea. I'm probably at about a 35 to 40 per cent chance that the stobor was Dave, but I'm probably wrong.

Again, as arrogant as I am, if someone comes into my thread and says "I think you're full of crap AND THIS IS WHY..." then I'm willing to listen to see if they've thought of something I didn't that squelches my idea. When threads get so large, and so vague, this is extremely difficult to have happen. When threads are ill defined, the difficulty in clarifying any idea becames twice as difficult to achieve. Add to that the belief that size matters, and the task becomes one that the gods themselves contend in vain.

Of course, one thing that would go a LOOOOONG way to clearing up such clutter is to get posters to refrain from quoting the person above them in their entirety (sorry Richard) and then saying something like: "Yea, what they said." I mean, if you're agreeing with the entire post, just say "I agree entirely with TPAM." That would address one of C3's annoyances I think quite well and at least make a thread quicker and easier to read.

But I still think it was wrong to delete the responses that got deleted without an explananation of any kind when they were deleted. Even the ones that said I should do nasty things with pickles or whatever the hell they were suggested I violate myself with. All I can say to that is someone sure has a rich fantasy life.

(and I did this at night so it would be cooler)

[LostInWilderness]

That [crappy theories] is the largest problem that has consistenly afflicted T&S.
Not the lack of or addition of subforums. Not more rules. Not forcing posters to "play nice."

No, the problem is and always has been allowing posters to post poorly thought out, poorly written, or poorly supported theories and then patting yourselves on the back saying 'look at how many posts we get. We are something now.' I've said this before and I will say it again: there was a time that THIS board was one that was listened to. THIS board held theories that sought to parse out the plots and deduce the directions the show was headed in. Since this debate is going to explode anyway, I might as well get into it. Chance is 95% right. Where he's wrong is when he blames the moderators. This board is almost completely self-moderated, and it's not the place of the moderators, the admins, or me to decide whether or not a theory has merit.

It's the job of the community, Chance included, to determine what theories float to the top. Our most critical (and entertaining) posters have allowed (my opinion follows) stupid, inane, bogus, and worthless theories to float around without any serious, blistering criticism to blow them away. It's an unfortunate and unbelievably frustrating position for me, since as an admin, I can't unleash on crap the way I would like. However nothing is stopping the rest of you, Chance included.

As long as you keep it within the guidelines, keep it about the theory, not the poster, you're welcome to blast the worthless drivel in here all day long. Don't let it become personal because if it does, the mods or I will have to step in. But this place used to be full of vigor and venom focussed on the ideas posted. Now it's lame.

We are not the polically correct or the nice Theory board. Ideally, if you post a theory in here, you better expect it to get blasted, so you better think twice. And if you can't handle that, don't post here. Go post in What I think...

Now if Chance will quit blaming the moderators for his lack of criticism, maybe this forum will liven up.

STAY WITHIN THE GUIDELINES!

[JacksGirlfriend]

Yeah, what he said.

(I don't like the use of large quotes either)

[Chance Gardener]

mods don't moderate in here? Is that what you are saying?

The reason such theories are allowed to "float around" here is because those posters that in the past would have flushed such theories have been told to shut up or else.

I heard the message loud and clear months ago; don't go blaming this on us now, after you've tied our hands and put the gun to our heads. This hasn't been a "self-moderated" forum for months now, almost a year.

You reap what you sow LiW.

[LostInWilderness]

mods don't moderate in here? Is that what you are saying? Mods don't judge theories and never have since I joined the board. The community does. That's been the policy since before I became a mod.

Quit whining about moderators and put your criticism to better use.

Of course, one thing that would go a LOOOOONG way to clearing up such clutter is to get posters to refrain from quoting the person above them in their entirety (sorry Richard) and then saying something like: "Yea, what they said." I mean, if you're agreeing with the entire post, just say "I agree entirely with TPAM." That would address one of C3's annoyances I think quite well and at least make a thread quicker and easier to read. This is seriously frowned upon. Please refrain from doing it. Think long and hard before posting a reply that is shorter than the quote above it (like this one). ;)

[JacksGirlfriend]

This forum is meant for ideas and discussion about those ideas. Anyone is welcome to post and everyone is welcome to comment on those posts. This forum works best when ideas are criticized with creativity and intelligence. We're not all going to agree which ideas are good, but we can certainly agree that when the ideas are discussed, they become better. Everyone has a different style of "criticism" and most are allowed - even encouraged.

This forum can only benefit from challenging ideas. A challenge can inspire another to work harder, strive for more cohesion and force them to update their thread with new information. A weak theory can become better when the theorist is prodded for additional thoughts; a good theory can become great with active participation and invigorating questions. And a great theory - well they last and rarely leave the front page.

We prefer you keep your criticism as civil as possible (our lives are easier) but occasionally tempers rise. That's okay too. As long as your criticism or argument concerns the IDEAS expressed and not the PERSON behind those ideas, you are on safe ground, no matter how shaky it sometimes seems.

We don't moderate the ideas here. We will move things if necessary but for the most part, we aren't going to be judges of the almighty idea. That is up to the members here. You can determine the quality of T&S by your participation. Sharing your thoughts, expressing concerns, asking questions. All of these can go a long way to determining the viability of a thread, the strength of the theory and the quality of this board.

[RichardR]

I was more just using yung's theory post as an example. Which btw I think is the best example on the topic of t&s, keeping it streamlined and flowing with new theories and fresh reading.
Most all of us have theories and their purpose is that people read them, agree or disagree. As I put my post's location in my sig for those who wish to read it.
It's not so much yung's post lacks merit, it's that even proving to him that it lacks merit doesn't slow down his constant spamming of the theory.
Which the main point is constant spamming by authors of any theory. The popularity of any theory should be dictated by those who read it and respond. I have little doubt yung's post would be at the top of the list every single day if left in the hands of the readers. If everyone now begins to spam their own theories the more important new posts would barely make it to the second page, which few read.
Basically just saying we shouldn't be bumping our own posts simply to spam them in the face of others. It gives the impression that a post is more significant than it is and keeps new posts from being seen.

[RichardR]

Of course, one thing that would go a LOOOOONG way to clearing up such clutter is to get posters to refrain from quoting the person above them in their entirety (sorry Richard) and then saying something like: "Yea, what they said." I mean, if you're agreeing with the entire post, just say "I agree entirely with TPAM." That would address one of C3's annoyances I think quite well and at least make a thread quicker and easier to read.



I should have snipped it but I thought to offer another opportunity to read it in it's entirety. I thought it was good enough to be repeated.

[LostInWilderness]

It's not so much yung's post lacks merit, it's that even proving to him that it lacks merit doesn't slow down his constant spamming of the theory. If you have a problem with a poster, you can PM a mod or admin. I haven't posted much, but I'm here.

Spamming a theory? This is a new concept to me. Please PM me with your complaint, and we'll talk about it. We're not going to discuss that here. This isn't going to become a piss and moan thread. Nor is it going to become the anti-yung thread.

[RichardR]

If you have a problem with a poster, you can PM a mod or admin. I haven't posted much, but I'm here.

Spamming a theory? This is a new concept to me. Please PM me with your complaint, and we'll talk about it. We're not going to discuss that here. This isn't going to become a piss and moan thread. Nor is it going to become the anti-yung thread.

No plans what so ever to complain. Was just an observation not meant to be anti-anyone. I've been on as many boards that allow self bumping as I have those that don't allow self bumping.

[NeillT006]

Quit whining about moderators

Can't use long quotes.

Can't bump my own threads.

Can't slam yung.

Can't whine about moderators.

Damn, what does a fella do for a good time around here?

That may explain the pickle.

N.

[JacksGirlfriend]

You could create another theory.

Why rest on your laurels? There's a whole new season coming. Get busy!

[NeillT006]

You could create another theory.


You first.

N.

[JacksGirlfriend]

I saw that coming.

All the good ones are taken, Neill.

[clayseason1]

I first started lurking at this board (well the old one) at the end of 2004. I lurked for a long time and I only read the T&S area. When I delurked and started posting (shortly after the ezboard hack), I only read and posted in T&S. Why? There was no need to read anything else - T&S was so interesting! (Now I do "travel" to the different forums and read and post there as well.)
During the time I've been here, I've started 9 threads - 5 of which are theories. I started my last 3 theories in "What I think". Part of the reason I did that was because I feel that T&S is beginning to look like a blogging/chit-chat area. Don't get me wrong - there are some good recent theories - but unfortunately those theories don't get the stimulating and cogent discussion they deserve. The lines between forums have become blurred.
I have an idea that may solve that problem and get things back on track.

IMO, there should be a new forum where all new theories are started. Each new theory should include a poll, where the reader can vote where to place that thread - T&S, What I think or not a theory. People voting should quantify their votes by specifying the reason. example: This thread should go in What I think as there are three threads on this subject already in T&S. or This thread should go in T&S. Although there are three threads about this subject, this theory as a new twist.
Leave each thread there until it gets a predetermined number of votes (20, 30 whatever). Then move the thread to the appropriate forum.
This will accomplish several things:

It will take the guesswork out of where to start a theory or speculation thread.
It will entice more people to read and discuss ideas - causing more cross-over from the different forums.
It will force the thread-starter to really think about what he/she is posting and perhaps promote quality rather than quantity.


eta: There could also be options like - needs work - unsubstantiated or needs work- factual errors.

[see you in the next life]

You mean rancor exists outside the realm of the "purists" vs. "mazers" venue. I am shocked.

[drabauer]

Hey syitnl! Such has it always been here. I have been with losttv-forums from the beginning, and T&S has always been a contentious place (as, one could argue, it should be, re: LiW's comments above).

Personally, my time is too valuable to be "tearing down" weak theories, or expending too much energy on those which are confusing and scattershot. Therefore I ignore them. If self-bumping is a problem, we may need to discuss it, but I don't think a theory would remain active if no one else responded.

Gambit's post was more to the point: some of the best theories dies because, let's face it, they have gone as far as they can with the information we have from the show at this time. Summarizing and codifying them would save those theories from the ignomy of slippping to page 6.

Again, having been here since the beginning, I find no logical comparison between season 1 theories and season 2. So much has changed since season 1, on the show, in cyberspace, in the marketing of the show, in the self-consciousness of posters. Just check out the archive at The Caves (http://loststudies.com/caves/index.html) to read some of the sweet, naive ideas floating around before the hatch was opened, Dharma was uncorked, and The Lost Experience geared up for its multimedia onslaught.

I have little to say in terms of speculation, but occasional insights into meaning as etched into the narrative on the show. I strongly encourage those who feel the same to cook up something for Lost Online Studies (http://loststudies.com/), as well as post it here. The journal is a way to preserve with dignity some essays that here would not remain on the front page, because they would not get the "popular" response a polemic might engender.

[RichardR]

You mean rancor exists outside the realm of the "purists" vs. "mazers" venue. I am shocked.

I don't see any reason for anyone to have more than one theory and keep updating it. Little sub-theories can be discussed as speculation within other posts.

[LostInWilderness]

Damn, what does a fella do for a good time around here?

That may explain the pickle.
I don't get the joke. Are you saying you can't discuss Lost because it's hiatus?

[NeillT006]

I saw that coming.

All the good ones are taken, Neill.

You want that I give one or two back?

N.

[NeillT006]

I don't get the joke.

Never mind.

boxers with extra starch, I bet

N.

[Gambit980]

I sorry chance I thought you of all people would have gotten my point in creating that post. There is no way we are going to have Moderators judge, and tear down unspecific theories. The only way I see this Forum to cultivate more concise ideas, is to create a carrot to lead the damn donkey. That carrot would be a Theories page, which is Static. There would be no disscussion on this page. It would not only be a tool for people to catch up, it would also give people an idea of how we like theories to be presented on this board. I don't think I am asking for a lot, and you can have as much member participation as you the moderators decide. I do think that this board has gotten too big not to have this simple little tool to guide it. It doesn't force any one to write a certain way. It doesn't require people to come an attack lesser theories. It mearly creates a goal, and it gives people something to shoot for.

For those of you how haven't been here forever, this disscussion has taken place many times before. I think I have provided a part solution.

[Chance Gardener]

Gambit, I know some boards have an "Announcements" forum that is technically a read only thing. Responses have to go in a separate "Responses to Announcements" subforum.

I believe this is what you are proposing. Have a "Summaries" forum which contains a precis of a theory. If you want to comment on it, you have to go to the main theory thread to do it. I believe this is what you are saying.

I see a couple of difficulties with this procedure. The first being this would tend to bog discussions down I think. You'd get a growing gap between people who are posting with a sub-idea in a theory thread, because something comes up that folks run with and newcomers responding to the summary on the summary page coming in and being out of sync to the discussion. Unless theory owners are going to be constantly updating their theory summary, I see this as a rather large problem.

The other difficulty is the simple fact that all too many posters are of the "squeeee!!!" mentality. As wondrous as excited sophonts are, let's face it - folks who are excited can help to reignite our own passions again, the majority of them tend not to employ a great deal of forethought into the response process. This is the single greatest reason you've got so many duplicate postings. Newbies come in, see folks are talking about what they think is going on in the show and so have to chime in with their 2 cents. Which is fine, but by now there are threads and sub-threads within this forum that covers many ideas by now. A response the majority of the time (and I'm talking like a 90% majority, not 51% here) should be put into one of the existing threads.

This would allow discussion to continue on in that thread, force them to reevaluate their own internal discussions based on the fresh eyes of newbie posters and challenge afficionados of that theory to reexamine their own beliefs of that theory. That is what would make things livelier and increase the discussions taking place. It would reduce the multiplicate posts being made on subjects like the numbers or purgatory. It would engender new theories as sub-theories could be deemed to be worthy of a life of their own by fellow posters.

But the idea that the "marketplace" of ideas will allow the cream to rise is crap. Mainly because to allow cream to rise, you have to not let the mix get stirred and that isn't going to happen here. I'm further bothered by this belief that we are responsible for making this a forum that is easier to navigate. That we are responsible for culling out the dross. Many of us used to do that in the beginning. But we kept getting our hands slapped by the mods for doing so. It got to the point we were told to thumperize or else (don't say anything unless it's nice or you'll be banned is what that means) because the mods would take care of the dross.

Well, they didn't because there were too few of them. Still are, and while there are more, the majority of them are unfamiliar with this forum. Now, we are being told T&S is full of crap because we theorists allowed it. Because we weren't policing it enough ourselves. THAT is why I'm a bit annoyed over the butter won't melt in our mouths attitude being given us now over T&S.

I agree when theories get long, it can be tedious to read them. Some theories should be summarized at the start of the thread and even part way through it, like trail markers. It would be the responsible and civil thing to do by posters and help demonstrate the good way to post a theory. I think others here have proposed some other good ways to clean up and strengthen this forum. I do think it is in some ways all of our responsibility to improve and strengthen how theories are posted and we should continually challenge ourselves and each other to maintain this forum.

I think it's a good idea Gambit, but I think it needs to be done within the threads themselves. I don't believe creating a subforum would alleviate this issue. I think going after folks to improve their theories is something we all need to do. I think challenging posters needs to be allowed again. Because no matter how much it is denied, right now it is deemed an attack just questioning a poster on the validity or strength of their theory. That idea needs to go away. We need to start getting in a thread's face and making it justify itself. Support itself. Explain itself more fully. And if need be, make it go home crying to mommy because obviously it isn't ready to play.

[JacksGirlfriend]

I agree with you, Chance.

http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=787764&postcount=64

LIW agrees with you.

http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=787729&postcount=60

So what else do you want us to do?

[island_maverick]

....right now it is deemed an attack just questioning a poster on the validity or strength of their theory.It seems few people can challenge without becoming personal, either intentionally or not. Even those with the skills to challenge without offence, often feel the need to over elaborate a use of metaphors to the point where the accpetability line is tested. Similarly, not everyone will read the same intent behind another user's post.

I agree entirely that T&S needs to improve, and quickly. I love the line "send it home crying to mommy until it is ready to play", it sums up what is needed in T&S right now - but it is a fine skill to challenge a theory to that extent without some mis-reading the intention of the challenge, and that is partly the responsibility of the person making the challenge.

If T&S is to improve, the way in which people are challenged needs to become more thoughtfully crafted. A 'look at me', throw-away metaphor is just as likely to stir trouble than challenge the theory. Get slicker and less apparently personal with the metaphors, even if personal offence was not intended.

[clayseason1]

Clayseason1 walks into thread, trips and falls. Upon inspection, she discovers http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/clayseason/lost/duel-7.jpg
She takes another step while looking back and trips and falls again. Looking down she sees http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/clayseason/lost/1778-L.jpg

:confused: Are people taking the gloves off? Clayseason decides to go back and read some statements.

LostInWilderness
It's the job of the community, Chance included, to determine what theories float to the top. Our most critical (and entertaining) posters have allowed (my opinion follows) stupid, inane, bogus, and worthless theories to float around without any serious, blistering criticism to blow them away. It's an unfortunate and unbelievably frustrating position for me, since as an admin, I can't unleash on crap the way I would like. However nothing is stopping the rest of you, Chance included.
Clayseason1 hangs head in shame

Yes, apathy has allowed me to become part of the problem, rather than the solution. It requires extra effort upon opening a thread filled with drivel to carefully craft a withering response without insulting the poster. (After all, if this theorist expects me to think about what they have to say and discuss it, he should at least spend some time eliminating factual errors and substantiating whatever claim he's making.) It's far easier to open that thread, roll your eyes, close it and walk away. Sadly, this allows this poster and others to think they can post this drivel, without challenge. Hence the cream does not rise to the top - it gets buried beneath the pablum.

Chance Gardener
I'm further bothered by this belief that we are responsible for making this a forum that is easier to navigate. That we are responsible for culling out the dross. Many of us used to do that in the beginning. But we kept getting our hands slapped by the mods for doing so. It got to the point we were told to thumperize or else (don't say anything unless it's nice or you'll be banned is what that means) because the mods would take care of the dross.

Well, they didn't because there were too few of them. Still are, and while there are more, the majority of them are unfamiliar with this forum. Now, we are being told T&S is full of crap because we theorists allowed it. Because we weren't policing it enough ourselves. THAT is why I'm a bit annoyed over the butter won't melt in our mouths attitude being given us now over T&S.
hmmmm......true dat! I remember when that started happening. As I recall, Warty pretty much stopped posting in T&S due to "thumperization". I also recall instances where a couple of mods attacked the poster and not the post. For example, one mod once told a poster he was anal-retentive! - of course he may not have been attacking the poster - maybe that was just my interpretation of what I read.

Clayseason1 ponders a bit.
Realization dawns on clayseason1 as she looks back at the gloves. A gauntlet has been thrown down - we, the regular posters in T&S are being challenged! She thinks about this - then reaches into her back pocket and throws down http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/clayseason/lost/2870SL.jpg :D

The onus of sorting the wheat from the chaff in this forum does not rest solely upon our shoulders. The mods share in this responsibility as well. I realize that the mods can't be everywhere and don't have the time to read everything, but only they can move or close a thread. The T&S forum should at least have a stickied thread, where a poster can link in a thread that should be moved or closed. The What I think forum has a sticky for veteran recommendations - T&S should have one as well.

Another helpful item the mods should address is length of threads. In my opinion, when a thread reaches a set number of posts, the theorist should summarize the discussion and it's findings in the first post and then note the number of the last post that was included in the summary. This would give anyone joining the discussion a working knowledge of what has already been discussed and facilitate entry into the conversation. Otherwise the sheer volume of the thread is too overwhelming and prevents many posters from joining in the discussion.

island_maverick
It seems few people can challenge without becoming personal, either intentionally or not. Even those with the skills to challenge without offence, often feel the need to over elaborate a use of metaphors to the point where the accpetability line is tested. Similarly, not everyone will read the same intent behind another user's post.
JacksGirlfriend
We prefer you keep your criticism as civil as possible (our lives are easier) but occasionally tempers rise. That's okay too. As long as your criticism or argument concerns the IDEAS expressed and not the PERSON behind those ideas, you are on safe ground, no matter how shaky it sometimes seems.
LostInWilderness
As long as you keep it within the guidelines, keep it about the theory, not the poster, you're welcome to blast the worthless drivel in here all day long. Don't let it become personal because if it does, the mods or I will have to step in. But this place used to be full of vigor and venom focussed on the ideas posted. Now it's lame.

We are not the polically correct or the nice Theory board. Ideally, if you post a theory in here, you better expect it to get blasted, so you better think twice. And if you can't handle that, don't post here. Go post in What I think...
Let's face it. Some people just cannot handle criticism. Even if the challenge is well crafted, the theorist may take it personally. We are not responsible for that theorist's defensive position under those circumstances. I don't think any of us need to walk on egg shells when challenging a theory. We just need to adhere to the guideline as JG and LIW state - "attack the post and not the poster".

Chance Gardener
I think going after folks to improve their theories is something we all need to do. I think challenging posters needs to be allowed again. Because no matter how much it is denied, right now it is deemed an attack just questioning a poster on the validity or strength of their theory. That idea needs to go away. We need to start getting in a thread's face and making it justify itself. Support itself. Explain itself more fully. And if need be, make it go home crying to mommy because obviously it isn't ready to play.
Well it looks like the gloves are off and have been thrown down as a challenge to the rest of us.

JacksGirlfriend
This forum can only benefit from challenging ideas. A challenge can inspire another to work harder, strive for more cohesion and force them to update their thread with new information. A weak theory can become better when the theorist is prodded for additional thoughts; a good theory can become great with active participation and invigorating questions. And a great theory - well they last and rarely leave the front page.
If this forum is to return to the vanguard position it once held - namely- the foremost forum for cogent theoretical LOST discussion, then it's up to us to make that happen.

Clayseason1 stares at the gloves for a long time.....squaring her shoulders, she walks over and picks them up.

I've decided to accept the challenge and shed my apathy. I have an inquiring mind, therefore, I'm pretty good at prodding for more information. :D

Clayseason1 looks back over her shoulder at the other T&S posters reading this - she slowly turns and extends her hands forward - she's hoping other posters care about T&S and are up to the challenge as well.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/clayseason/lost/sig8.jpg
En Garde

:D

[cccourt]

Finally....

Clay, CG, jg, and LIW....I don't want to sound as if I have not evolved with this board, but I do recall the days in which we feverishly culled threads due to the magic number of "20." It wasn't a bad idea. Then we went all archival on the threads.

Early days found me going to the last and least read threads...scan for content as to archive, and if not archive worthy, delete. It was all so simple. We made a few people angry. Shit happens. It was easy and quick.

We are drowning in some of this mire. I did say it is not right for one of us to make a judgment call on what is LOST worthy and what isn't. The truth is, I have done that in the past..and felt useful doing it. I believe this was an effective and realistic way to cull. If a few don't like what the mods do, under the direction of our leader, then find another site. There are about 3,000 of them.

When we started, none of us had experience; we went with our gut...and listened to posters/members. We heeded direction from our leaders...and look where this site is today. Some things we did were wrong...very few. We talked to one another a lot. We didn't make empty decisions. I , for one, don't do that anymore. I pass over threads which should be deleted as we just don't do that anymore.

This board..ANY board ....should be driven by quality and not quantity. I think we have forgotten that. I don't want to sound elitist over which or what I would say stays....I am just saying...after Chuck Norris thread is 6 to 8 months old..and no new posts for about 5 of those months...it would be prudent to prune it.

c3:Headbang:

[NeillT006]

It seems few people can challenge without becoming personal

And it seems fewer, still, can be on the receiving end of a challenge without taking it personal.

Frankly, I have a hard time taking a position on any of this, and then sticking to it.

I go back and forth.

At times I agree with those who view much of what is offered as T&S as little more than the poorly digested remnants of some hastily scarfed, and barely tasted, tidbit blasted across the screen in an act of explosive flatulence which any reasonable person would deem unwelcome in polite society.

That's kind of fun.

Other times I am mindful that we are all God's children, and should be treated accordingly.

But, I guess mostly I think that discipline is required. If a poster fails to demonstrate that quality then it is fair for the community to step in, notwithstanding the action or inaction of moderators.

Such an approach, however, brings with it the requirement of discipline on the part of the responder, as well. Community action needs to be appropriate to the degree of transgression presented. An A-Bomb will, no doubt, put an end to the annoyance of a pesky fly. But so too will the flick of a finger, and with a lot less collateral damage.

So (can you tell I am thinking out loud??), today I guess I end up with those who say we need to take responsibility as a community in order to set and enforce standards directed to the production and maintenance of an environment conducive to the kind of posting experience we want. If granted the freedom to do so, however, the opportunity needs to be used responsibly and not for gratification of our baser instincts.

But I may think differently tomorrow.

N.

[NeillT006]

So what else do you want us to do?

You still got those 4" spiked heels and black net stockings?

N.

[NeillT006]

If this forum is to return to the vanguard position it once held - namely- the foremost forum for cogent theoretical LOST discussion, then it's up to us to make that happen.


CS:

I read the other boards as well. While I agree that we have come back to the pack, I am not sure this is entirely due to "board issues." We have a stable of good minds. But as time goes on the mystery can not help but to become a bit more focused, leaving less room for the type of wide-open speculating that was done here so well by so many. I am not sure, but I wonder if some of what we are feeling is just a longing for the good old days.

N.

[Chance Gardener]

No, I am not longing for the good old days, just for what was good about the old days.

And yes Neill, it IS fun telling someone their post is replete with fecal matter that has begun to ferment giving off noxious gases redolent with the decay of stupidity and the hubris of self-righteousness.

And the statement that any attack, even indirect, is seen as evil by some people is a true one. Lieutenant, I believe you will well remember the incident I was involved in before you were even a mod with one Greenwich Mean Time poster. His sense of being effronted was so great that he claimed I hacked his personal computer and broadcast his information over the internet. And my criticism of him was mild (well, until that point that is). I mean really, is there anyone here who DOESN'T know that GMT means Greenwich Mean Time???

But fine, you say we are allowed to challenge, that in fact we have a duty to challenge, I shall be willing to take up that charge. But remember that I have already said we have been threatened with censure for doing so; I will look to you all to support those of us who take up this task.

Now, where did I put that vorpal sword????

[clayseason1]

We have a stable of good minds. But as time goes on the mystery can not help but to become a bit more focused, leaving less room for the type of wide-open speculating that was done here so well by so many. I am not sure, but I wonder if some of what we are feeling is just a longing for the good old days.
There's probably some of that feeling there, isn't there always? However, there is still a wealth of untouched material in this program for speculation which can and should lead to lively, intelligent discussion.

So (can you tell I am thinking out loud??), today I guess I end up with those who say we need to take responsibility as a community in order to set and enforce standards directed to the production and maintenance of an environment conducive to the kind of posting experience we want.
I'm glad that you agree - at least today. (I do think you will look quite dashing brandishing a rapier about.)

[LostInWilderness]

As I recall, Warty pretty much stopped posting in T&S due to "thumperization". I also recall instances where a couple of mods attacked the poster and not the post. For example, one mod once told a poster he was anal-retentive! - of course he may not have been attacking the poster - maybe that was just my interpretation of what I read. No doubt we're not perfect, but if you think a mod has acted outside the guidelines, you can PM me or any other admin to check it out. I guarantee the admins are pretty reasonable. I certainly hope Hawg didn't vacation because a moderator chased him off. He's one of the best at shooting down theories.

I take the guidelines very seriously, and I don't move or merge threads that meet them. In spite, or was it because, of that, all of season 2, I probably moved and merged more threads than all the other moderators combined, doing the best the guidelines allowed to keep the quality in this forum up. If a member PMs me about a thread, I'm always willing to take a look. I'm also willing to consider changes to the guidelines.

Let's face it. Some people just cannot handle criticism. Even if the challenge is well crafted, the theorist may take it personally. That's a fact. You have no idea how many times I've told complaining posters to grow a thicker skin because we encourage strong criticism of theories in T&S, and if they weren't ready for it, they should post elsewhere. Some posters have left the board because I wouldn't stop the criticism. I wish they had just moved to What I think..., gotten more confidence and the feel for T&S, and come back, but it was their choice. What's sad is I haven't heard such a complaint in many months.

If you attack only the post and not the poster, I'm going to back you up all the way. While we don't moderate mods, I still am the "owner" of this forum and the final arbiter of such things here, so you can always contact me if you have a problem with a moderator. You can do that for any other forum as well, that's what admins are for, but even more so in here.

Thanks for an excellent post.

[LostInWilderness]

Now, where did I put that vorpal sword????
Go find it.

[TheBigCat]

Undeleting RichardR's posts of 2 July 06

[JacksGirlfriend]

You still got those 4" spiked heels and black net stockings?


Anything for you, Neill.

Chance - you've always been a target because you're good at what you do. I'll stick by you.

Clayseason - Thank you for the excellent post.

[Chance Gardener]

so when did Doc get kicked off of being in charge of this forum?
Maybe there's a correlation between that and the present state of T&S...

[LostInWilderness]

sMaybe there's a correlation between that and the present state of T&S...
That's a nice new way to try to blame me, Chance. You're nothing if not predictable, and a year late. ;) When she got her new job in CA, drabauer didn't have time to own this forum anymore. I inherited the same lack of power to judge the value of theories drabauer inherited. We restricted the guidelines to require supporting evidence for a theory soon after to allow a tiny bit more effective moderating, but we clearly still have a problem. It's good to see some effective ideas from others.

[clayseason1]

NeillT006 (bolding mine)
But, I guess mostly I think that discipline is required. If a poster fails to demonstrate that quality then it is fair for the community to step in, notwithstanding the action or inaction of moderators.

Such an approach, however, brings with it the requirement of discipline on the part of the responder, as well. Community action needs to be appropriate to the degree of transgression presented. An A-Bomb will, no doubt, put an end to the annoyance of a pesky fly. But so too will the flick of a finger, and with a lot less collateral damage.
Sounds like you are suggesting a "code of conduct". That's not a bad idea.

I think the T&S forum regulars could come together and discuss it and quite possibly arrive at a consensus - perhaps incorporate it into a motto?

Why don't you start a thread for that discussion?

[RichardR]

As soon as one suggests to have a section of just the more valid theories then begins the argument of who shall judge what theory is valid.

The most that can really happen is popularity and no self bumping. And of course a theory needs to specifically match some points, more than just one, to be a theory or speculation.

Good Example: The Black rock is a mining ship because I have seen shackles dating the same era and it was carrying dynamite. The door map reveals Magnus was on the Black Rock.

Bad example: The plane could have not been brought down by not entering the numbers because magnets have no affect on alluminum.
(note the conflict that not entering the numbers has been matched at least 3 times to pulling something in)

[clayseason1]

RichardR

As soon as one suggests to have a section of just the more valid theories then begins the argument of who shall judge what theory is valid.
I don't see an argument here about who judges what theory is valid. In my opinion, it is quite evident that we, the members of this board and posters in this forum are the ultimate judges of whether a theory is valid or not. Through our discussions we will either debunk a theory or develop it further.

The most that can really happen is popularity and no self bumping.
If you mean that a well-liked person posting a bad or ill-conceived theory is not going to be subjected to critical analysis, then you are mistaken.

[RichardR]

RichardR




If you mean that a well-liked person posting a bad or ill-conceived theory is not going to be subjected to critical analysis, then you are mistaken.

Popularity of a theory not a person. As in the "most popular explanation" and "widely accepted". Not that the most popular will avoid being completely wrong, but it's a starting point for discounting theories. Baseless theories could be bumped to the rear.

[Lawboy]

Does a new protocol need to be in place due to the reveals regarding TLE at Comic con and in recent press releases? Just wondering what effect if any, this ought to have so people dont get upset about reveals.

[LostInWilderness]

The guidelines aren't changing. If you want to talk freely about the webgame, do it in spin-offs. If you want to use info from it on the rest of the board to support or refute some discussion, use spoiler tags. If you want to create a theory about the show that also draws from the webgame, use the ST label in your theory.

[NeillT006]

The guidelines aren't changing. If you want to talk freely about the webgame, do it in spin-offs. If you want to use info from it on the rest of the board to support or refute some discussion, use spoiler tags. If you want to create a theory about the show that also draws from the webgame, use the ST label in your theory.

As these things evolve so will we. (http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=839250&postcount=24)

I think that means you too, eh?

N.

[LostInWilderness]

I'm pretty consistent.

[NeillT006]

I'm pretty consistent.

Persistent anyway.

N.

[Chance Gardener]

I'm pretty consistent.

I think I am relatively safe in speaking for the majority of people here when I say that we truly have little to no interest in your toilet habits.

[Mysterious Mike]

^^^

LOL


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ec/All-bran.cbx.jpg/180px-All-bran.cbx.jpg

[lacenaire]

What we were waiting for was to see just how TLE was going to relate to the whole thing and it's becoming much higher profile, and not just something ABC dreamed up to keep people amused during the hiatus.

It appears now as if TLE is going to come more and more to the forefront as very relevant to the show.
'It appears', 'it's becoming much higher profile'...

Are there any characters from the show being mentioned in that? Is there any explanation for why they were on the island? What did one snowman say to another? Is this Rachel person going to appear on the show? Or the podcaster, or the blogger, or the corporate lawyer?

[LostInWilderness]

Is this Rachel person going to appear on the show? Or the podcaster, or the blogger, or the corporate lawyer?
This is in the realm of spoilers. The best place to ask all these questions is in the spin-off forum.

[lacenaire]

Sorry, you are right. I 'spoilertagged' the previous post.

[island_maverick]

Locking and moving to Archives.

A revised rules thread has been stickied to replace it.

mav.