Mod inaction and the future

[Virilis]

Tetus, an Epic answer !

[Flavivs Aetivs]

As an outside observer (I'm not a re-enactor, merely a lover of ancient history), yes, I have seen what I would view as pretty harsh criticism at times. But I think there is, and should be, a distinction between someone who is displaying his kit and someone who is trying to sell something. When money is involved, the standards change, and the seller has to be prepared for tough, even unfair, criticism. It's the nature of business.

That's a great way of putting it. Re-enacting, to me, is as fun part of being a historian, but like you it's not my primary reason for being here.

I'm here as a historian as well, even though I'm not necessarily qualified as one, I'm not ridiculed for being a little less experienced in the general field of roman history - that's why I present a lot of my posts as questions or statements that can purposefully be corrected. Because outside of 4th and 5th century history I don't know as much as many of you do.

I think maybe part of the problem is that, in this particular instance, it was the amount of money spent making the product, and then the continued criticism, that really "broke the camel's back."

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Glad to hear that....now.....on a amtter of some items I have bought..... :wink:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

As an outside observer (I'm not a re-enactor, merely a lover of ancient history), yes, I have seen what I would view as pretty harsh criticism at times. But I think there is, and should be, a distinction between someone who is displaying his kit and someone who is trying to sell something. When money is involved, the standards change, and the seller has to be prepared for tough, even unfair, criticism. It's the nature of business.

Glad so many agree with this.....now.....on to a matter of some items I have bought..... :twisted:

[jvrjenivs]

Well, being called a stitch-nazi isn't that nice either. So, it's not only European's to blame.

That said, I think much is also just down to a difference in goal. Lots of European groups have educational goals, are invited by events paid for by sponsors (and taxes), and thus have a duty to educate with the best of their ability.

This goal simply is different from a 'Roman soldiers experience' event without public. Both can be interesting and fun, but simply need another stratergy and thereby can have different standards, rules, etc.

Be it in authenticity, safety measurements (goggles?), etc.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

All of the US events are public and designed to be educational for the most part. The only private one I can think of is Lafe.

[M. Demetrius]

When money is involved, the standards change, and the seller has to be prepared for tough, even unfair, criticism.

Here, on this forum, the consensus of opinion of the Staff and Moderators is that criticism is fine, but rudeness is not. Please don't test the limits here. We're very interested in keeping this a fair, fun, and safe environment. Flailing away at a product or vendor, as has sometimes been overlooked in the past will no longer be so. Think first, then edit, then think again before attacking any person, product or idea. Enough said?

If you don't like a product, don't buy it--but don't poison the well. Other people may have different standards and opinions, and they are entitled to keep them.

@Aetius There are other non-public events at different times and places. Most are set up by a specific group for their own purposes, and generally, those in the area known to the group are invited to attend, but rarely is a broad attendance expected. It's usually to prove a product, or test some idea, or just to get together with the specific group in the area. Often these are not publicized at all. I know of three groups who do this sort of camp from time to time in Texas.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I see, thanks.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Flailing away at a product or vendor, as has sometimes been overlooked in the past will no longer be so.

Dear David,
I think this is something all can agree upon. However, it would make sense to specify exactly where this flailing starts and where critique ends, so that all those who are going to critisize something will know where the line is drawn. It would be great, if you could do so with the examples from the past, which you name. Ideally by quoting them and marking the relevant lines.
On a personal note: Normally I mostly heard "freedom of speech" from "across the pond" when I was still actively moderating. Has this, what I regarded as a deep-rooted US principle, changed over the course of the last year(s)? Or is there a line to be drawn as well?
=> I do not intend to spark a political debate here, or the like, I am asking because I am genuinely interested.

Thanks a lot, also for the continuing stressing mod-work. ( It is indeed stressing sometimes to read every day all new posts, I know it, I did this for five years)

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Well, I've never heard that line used in my time here on this forums or on other forums, but that technically is true. We have freedom of speech, providing you're willing to suffer the potential consequences of saying what is not appropriate/etc.

Also, I agree the line, or at least the grey area where people need to be warned to lighten up, needs to be drawn.

[markusaurelius]

It might be nicer to throw flowers and praise all the time, but this would not help people increase their knowledge about roman military equipment.

About seven years ago I started out with Roman reenactment and discovered RAT. I must say that I have learned a lot on this forum and from the immensly valuable and often critical and severe contributions of some of it's members. I hope this will not change by heavy censorship!

I agree. It is hard at times to point out something as in accurate, or go against the stream. Science and other areas of study are the same. I think the point of this forum is to explore and learn new things about Roman military gear. Whether you make it, wear it or just enjoy learning about it. Some people are fascinated at learning how heavy an armor piece is, or how thick a piece of sheet metal, rivet etc. is. This forum is a great place to discuss and learn new things about that. Some people don't like hearing that something they've done for ever is not accurate. Does that make them inferior, less of a re-enactor or otherwise? No. But is means we have to put our thin skin aside and allow everyone to openly discuss things.

If that kind of dialogue didn't happen everyone would still be wearing the Ebay Trooper helmet happily padding each other on the back and have no idea what a real Roman helmet actually looked, felt like to wear.

As our knowledge changes and grows everyone can take something away from it. Hopefully with the new MOD commitment this can be achieved in a polite manner. I hope however that it doesn't stop people from debating or discussing differences of opinions in an open manner.

[M. Demetrius]

It's just not possible to make a list of rules comprehensive enough to cover every possible choice of words, or mood, or smiley face, etc. A person should simply make sure his words are not likely to be offensive to whomever reads them. That's not hard to do.

The "Spartan helmets" from the movie 300."This helmet is a piece of junk and it sucks, and anyone who buys it is a stupid fool." Obvious. Same helmet: "Is there provenance for a style like this helmet, or is it a movie-maker's costume piece?"

Freedom of speech is alive and well in just about all free countries everywhere, both sides of the Atlantic. But like any other freedom, my right to swing my arms around ends just before your nose begins. We want things friendly here, even in disagreement, and especially because English is not the first language of many of the people on the forum. I'm free to say, "The government of East Andalaysina is stupid." But the East Andalaysinians will mostly be offended. So I don't say that. Freedom of any kind without thougtful restraint is not really freedom, especially for those who choose to press the limits deliberately: it becomes another form of bondage.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

That's true.

I think at this point we'll let the mods handle it, this was a result of inaction, so it's time to step up and take a little more action.

[Robert]

Dear all,

I have just reviewed my posts to see where I went wrong. I do not believe the real problem is the tone, but the simple fact that a "European upstart" as myself had the audacity to question the authenticity of the piece presented by an American vendor in the first place and did not back down when challenged. Just to make sure I have used this word in the right context, I have looked it up in Webster’s dictionary.

a.The quality of being authentic or of established authority for truth and correctness.[Websters]
b.Genuineness; the quality of being genuine or not corrupted from the original.[Websters].

Authenticity (reenactment), in historical reenactment, a measure of how close an item, prop, action, weapon, or custom is, to what would actually have been used or done in the time period being depicted

On being challenged to do so after having inquired about the provenance, I have invested some time checking the given references of provenance, being factual, and have posted those results. I will not repeat these here, as I have stated my case in previous posts. I have not slandered or abused anyone, I have not attacked anyone’s country or religion, nor have I commented on any other items SOTW offers for sale or any other issues then the claimed authenticity of that specific item.

As for the claimed amount of money spent or alleged feelings towards the US or Christians (of which I am one), I believe these should not matter in a scientific discussion. Nor does the fact where the item was made have any relevance. The implied accusation of harboring anti-American or anti-Christian sentiments or even grievances or bad feeling towards SOTW or its owner is unfounded and grieving to me as a person in its own right. It also clouds the issue discussed with false sentiment.

It will be a sad day when items offered for sale through this forum, in particular those of which the vendors claim authenticity, should no longer be eligible for scientific review for fear of said vendor leaving the forum in a tantrum or of being slapped down by a moderator.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Point taken, but I'm not arguing that. Rusty had been putting up with a lot, not necessarily from you. It was probably mostly in private messages or something.

Also, I was just reading the old announcement page for the "forum for ancient reenactors."

That forum page was quite... well it was literally on the verge of breaking down into a flame war within the first 10 posts.

I think there is a sort of "elitist attitude" regarding this site, although I don't think it warrants the reputation that we appearantly have. I think there is a big problem on both sides here, although diminished considering the majority of the Americans seem to have left a while ago.

I learned by being shot down and told I was wrong, and I think the problem might be that the americans can't tolerate being told they're wrong sometimes. I learned most of what I know From the TWC forums by willing to take the risk of being told that something I said wasn't right.

However, I think many of you europeans have a reluctance to concede ground as well on many things as well. If neither side can tolerate it than both sides will alienate each other, no matter if it's put nicely or bluntly.

In regards to that final thread, Mr. Myers put a lot of work into that piece. He wasn't necessarily wrong; it just could have been better maybe. I think maybe a big problem IS the lack of interaction; many of the americans neglect to do much on the site. I think one thing that could help is a forum for sellers to ask for an opinion on the development of a piece from their consumer base, prior to actually releasing a product. There they could show their development and get positive input on how they could continue developing an item, and also how they could do it cost-effectively.

What do you think?