Jump to content


Photo

Chronological Parameters


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 03 February 2008 - 20:29

What, exactly, are the chronological parameters for discussion topics on the Racing Comments and The Nostalgia Forum? It seems safe to assume -- as there seems to be a trend emerging as more threads are being moved to TNF -- that the Ten-year Rule is in effect. If this is so, I would suggest that the descriptions of the two fora on the Bulletin Board be changed to refllect this. It is only fair to let someone know that if they post something on the Racing Comments that is outside the officically mandated timeframe allowed for discussion that they be aware of that, as well as the fact that the thread/topic will be moved to TNF.

The description of the TNF on the BB is long overdue for a rewrite, regardless of the issue of the chronological parameters. Since it is the "nostalgia" about motor racing -- and not the history of automobile racing, that is clearly the implied purpose of TNF, whether the choronolgical parameter is set at ten years, five years or twenty-five months is largely irrelevant it would seem.

This is not an attempt to put a cockroach in the potato salad at the senior picnic -- trying to put Bira in a low hover in other words, simply an administrative suggestion to address what will be more of an issue as time rolls on with the fora. Soon, it will be about a decade since the Great RC Meltdown. In the next few years, there will be people who will have been posting on the RC for over a decade, an eternity in RC years. It is only fair to give them (and others) a heads up that there is a possibility of a thread being re-directed should the topic touch upon something whose timeframe is deemed more appropriate for TNF.

While I am at it, any chance there being "The Automobile Racing History Forum" -- TARHF just seems to roll off the tongue, doesn't it? -- to supplement TNF?

Advertisement

#2 uffen

uffen
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 06 February 2008 - 12:24

A history forum might be a good idea. For me, nostalgia is a personal thing - a recollection of former experiences and pleasures. I don't believe one can be "nostalgic" for a time before one's birth, for instance. Still, I like to hear about the racing that went on before I was around and I like to reminisce about the things I remember, too.
Can they co-exist? Yes, they can, but it may make it easier for some to find what they're looking for if they are seperate forums.

#3 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,119 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 06 February 2008 - 14:02

:rolleyes: give it a rest now.

#4 mach4

mach4
  • Member

  • 1,872 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 06 February 2008 - 14:35

In my opinion TNF should go up to the most recent season where there was no driver currently on the grid. I believe that would be 1992 right now since Rubens started in 1993.

#5 Jordan191

Jordan191
  • Member

  • 7,262 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 06 February 2008 - 15:03

This is actually a good question

I had a thread chucked in TNF a couple years back that had me scratching my head.

Mabye we should have hard guidelines. And I like mach's

#6 JForce

JForce
  • Member

  • 13,841 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 06 February 2008 - 15:33

Why don't you just come out and say that you don't like anyone discussing anything past about 1980? :rolleyes: Just start sub-forums for decades, and then post accordingly?

#7 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 06 February 2008 - 15:52

Originally posted by mach4
In my opinion TNF should go up to the most recent season where there was no driver currently on the grid. I believe that would be 1992 right now since Rubens started in 1993.


Which grid? Mark Martin, Kyle Petty, and a few others have been around for quite a few years, as an example. I am sure there are others still around the grid somewhere who were racing going back into the late-1970s and early-1980s.

I just think that this is, perhaps, an issue that could use or needs some clarification. As was mentioned by "Jordan191," there are times when threads pop up in either one of the fora that have folks scratching their heads. It is realized that any policy cannot be strictly adhered to 100% time, but some guidelines could prove to be helpful down the road.

It is certainly not a burning issue at the moment, but simply one that could use some attention.

#8 John Morrison

John Morrison
  • Member

  • 41 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 06 February 2008 - 17:03

One good example: death of Benny Parsons. Any current NASCAR fan will recognize Parsons as down to earth beyond damn good NASCAR commentator. When I started Parsons was in wanning racing years of his career but recognized him more behind TV booth. He was still behind the booth til cancer claimed him. The posts of Parsons death on RC quickly got moved and merged with the posts on TNF. What gives? Maybe its Autosports or anyone running the board that needs a history of lesson on which "old-timer racing back then" to what's currnently doing at the moment whether its racing or doing TV commentary instead else giving out unknown ruled "nostalgia starts a decade."

That is so uncool of the boards. jcbc3 you are uncool at the moment for your disrespect of racing's past. You are not allowed in the portal of infinite.

#9 mach4

mach4
  • Member

  • 1,872 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 06 February 2008 - 17:15

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps


Which grid? Mark Martin, Kyle Petty, and a few others have been around for quite a few years, as an example. I am sure there are others still around the grid somewhere who were racing going back into the late-1970s and early-1980s.


Yes, sorry, I was looking at things only from an F1 perspective but you could apply this to any series. You would just have different year cut-offs for each series.

So to put it another way, for each racing series TNF would go up to the most recent year where every driver on the grid for that series has retired from racing in it.

#10 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,119 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 06 February 2008 - 20:24

Originally posted by John Morrison
...

That is so uncool of the boards. jcbc3 you are uncool at the moment for your disrespect of racing's past. You are not allowed in the portal of infinite.


My point is that this is the third thread started on this subject. The moderators has answered whatever there is to answer. Hence it's time to give it a rest.

For all you know, I may even agree basically with you and HDC. There is, however, a time and place for everything and the subject of this threads time and place has come and gone.

#11 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 06 February 2008 - 21:09

Originally posted by jcbc3
My point is that this is the third thread started on this subject. The moderators has answered whatever there is to answer. Hence it's time to give it a rest.

For all you know, I may even agree basically with you and HDC. There is, however, a time and place for everything and the subject of this threads time and place has come and gone.


Oh, sorry, I obviously missed the answer. Of course, not for the first time, I may not have realized the answer as being the answer.

Not sure I understand the point about there being "a time and place for everything and the subject of this threads time and place has come and gone," but then again, you are perhaps correct in stating that this is a dead and buried issue.

Oh, well, so it goes. I did not mean to waste anyone's time. Sorry. Forget it.

#12 Zmeej

Zmeej
  • Member

  • 30,996 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 12 February 2008 - 22:16

Hmmm.

Methought Mr. Capps's post was timely, well presented, and ably argued.

The other extant thread which deals with the subject is titled "Attempt 2," so it strikes me that the first might not have been altogether satisfying. Of course, this thread can readily be merged with the other, but I don't see why it can't be discussed, and why people should be consigned to the memory hole for broaching it.

#13 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,119 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 13 February 2008 - 07:04

ALL Mr. Capps' posts are well presented and ably argued. This one just isn't 'timely'.

The contentious thread was about a retired drivers switch to a now defunct team. That is, IMHO, nostalgia by any definition. When the discussion in the thread went OT to 'the 10 year rule' that Ross Stonefeld implemented (though maybe not as firmly as some would think, knowing Ross' posting style) it was closed up. Someone then started a thread specifically about this and when that was closed a second thread with the same theme popped up. I seem to remember that Bira said that this was a moderation issue and that these, according to the rules posted in all fora, are not up for public discussion. Hence I think this new thread is pointless and untimely. However well presented and argued it is.

#14 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 13 February 2008 - 11:52

Originally posted by jcbc3
ALL Mr. Capps' posts are well presented and ably argued. This one just isn't 'timely'.


Story of my life here at Atlas....

#15 MPea3

MPea3
  • Member

  • 2,144 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 17 February 2008 - 03:11

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps


Oh, sorry, I obviously missed the answer. Of course, not for the first time, I may not have realized the answer as being the answer.

Not sure I understand the point about there being "a time and place for everything and the subject of this threads time and place has come and gone," but then again, you are perhaps correct in stating that this is a dead and buried issue.

Oh, well, so it goes. I did not mean to waste anyone's time. Sorry. Forget it.


Don, it's not a matter of your having wasted anyone's time, but as much as I enjoyed meeting you a few years back and admire you, your leadership and your contributions to TNF from it's inception to now, I also feel the questions have been answered. Without trying to be offensive, your questions about the purpose and moderation of TNF since your replacement have become a bit tedious. I've read your comments, both bluntly and cryptically delivered about how the purpose of TNF was never meant as nostalgia. I understand that it was meant as a forum of history, but at some point I feel like saying that I heard you the first twenty times.

TNF has evolved into what it is, good or bad. I don't think it's so bad. Those in charge of the service seem happy with it regardless of what it might have been or once was. Some members have left, others have arrived. In the end it certainly isn't what you (or others) may have envisioned, but through their actions those in charge have spoken volumes. When any thread becomes another "this wasn't my TNF vision by Don" thread and gets shut down, you've been told the answers to your questions, like it or not.

Your otherwise wonderful posts and continued contribution to TNF shouldn't be cluttered with your continuing to fight a battle that was long ago lost. As jcbc3 said "Hence it's time to give it a rest."

#16 MPea3

MPea3
  • Member

  • 2,144 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 18 February 2008 - 03:06

Don, since your response addresses a few of the point I stated, I'll respond and then leave the last word to you.

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
That there is such a willingness to readily accept and even defend a dumbed-down TNF, that few seem to be even concerned, much less bothered by the existence of a forum that is far less than it could be, simply indicates that the resistence by those at Atlas to a forum that could -- heavens forbid! -- be deemed "elistist" in the sense that knowledge would be considered more important than the rambling, often incoherent, generally pointless posts that constitute what is considered to be "nostalgia," then those at Atlas should be delighted with the support they are getting for their position.


I have no doubt that they are.

No offense, but whether you have read it five times, twenty times or five thousand times that TNF was intended to be a history forum and sick of reading it is utterly irrelevant to me. That was the intention and the root cause of the "meltdown" some years ago.

I am sick and tired of this passive acceptance of the dumbing-down of inquiry, the easy acceptance of low (or no) expectations. It is, without much doubt, a fruitless and doomed war to wage, particularly over such so utterly unimportant and completely obscure an issue as an internet forum. At some point, one simply gets tired of the dunces running things. Make no mistake, the dunces far outnumber the "elitist snobs" on TNF.

So, don't expect me to give it a rest.


Regardless of my opinion and what I think you should do, I didn't expect for you to find my comments relevant or have them affect what you continue to post. I'm glad that you're at least being honest about your intentions rather than pretending to not know "the answer".

This will probably be resolved when -- not if -- the powers-that-be here at Atlas either finally get tired of me and finally banish me once for all. If enough of you complain, that would hasten the process and allow you to be rid of me.


If that happens it will be a sad day for me, but if you wish to martyr yourself in the pursuit of your defense of what you wanted TNF to be, I suppose that's your prerogative.

At some point, those running Atlas will get tired of TNF and pull the plug, the reason being that the forum is not generating sufficient subscriptions to warrant its continued existence. Or that the member profile does not match that of its advertisers. More likely, it will be a combination of the two. When TNF does disappear, along with all the endless tripe will go those nuggets which seem to exist only on TNF.

Can't happen you say? Think again.


I have no doubt that it can happen, but I hope it doesn't.

A quick check of godaddy.com shows that racehistory.org is availabvle for $8.95 and a hosting plan that includes a bulletin board/forum can be had for $3.99 a month. If your concern really is that TNF and your original goals need to be salvaged and fixed, I'm sure you'll have no trouble raising the money and finding someone to do the grunt work in setting it up. Hell, I'll even spring for the first year.

If on the other hand, your desire is to stir the pot until you either get what you want to destroy it in the process, you don't need my help. If that makes me a dunce, so be it.

#17 Zmeej

Zmeej
  • Member

  • 30,996 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 19 February 2008 - 16:42

Thanks for the additional background, jcbc3 & MPea3 :up: