board77

There was the one of the wounded Faramir being dragged through the gates of Minas Tirith by his horse. . .

Warning! Warning!

<alarm buzzer sound effects>

Major osgiliation ahead in the following post.
.
.
.
.


How could I have failed to mention the Ring reflecting flames and the arguing council!
I distinctly remember thinking how appropriate it was at the time.

Gandalf's staff shattering ... Hmmm. Will have to think about that. No doubt it will prove to reflect your views on the Gandalf/WitchKing scene.
They were fairly unique, as I recall, insofar as you saw it more as a truimph than a defeat.

I would not have tied the Passing of The Elves into this sequence.
Need to think about that one, too. Although ... viewed as the passing of the old guard ( closed board) and with the shattering staff seen as a positive change ... a catalyst ...

Very Old Friends as a bridge ....

Doors. Moria. Aragorn opening the doors at Meduseld (how could I fail to notice that one. ) Minis Tirith ... ah ... this is proving more difficult than I first thought. Give me some time and I'll come up with what I think YOU thought, rather than what I think, okay?

TheLidlessEyes wrote:

What you need to ask yourselves, is whether having that commonality of Tolkien is part of the mission. Ie, is that where you want this board to be in the future.

I would say no.

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

Steve, I would say 'yes'. Not only has a love of Tolkien's work brought us together, there is a significant portion of the membership that is still interested in dicussing issues related to Tolkien, as my dear friend Athrabeth points out with her usual aplomb.

Exactly my point. The current membership. The Mission Statement should be forward thinking, not resting on our haunches.

Cerin wrote:

I would say yes, for one simple reason. There is something about Tolkien that attracts the very best kind of people. Just look around you.

I rest my case.

Cerin, I love you, I really do, but I reject this utterly. Perhaps we should have a Tolkien IQ induction test to see if they are eligible to join. And if they know a few words in Elvish, well, they should be allowed to apply to be an admin straight away, bypassing normal protocol. Am I the only one that finds this somewhat arrogant? That attitude would deter more than it would draw.

May I remind you of Fandumb, and of the baser parts of TORn? Yes, they love Tolkien too. The statement would draw more of them than an intellectual who hasn't read Tolkien. Guess which I prefer.

Me? I don't give a fig whether anyone's heard of Tolkien or not. It's not a prerequisite to being superior. I'll judge people by their writing, not their reading. It's a shrill and snobbish comment and reminds me of the story of Educating Rita.

"Wouldn't you simply die without Mahler?"

Perhaps only couples should be allowed here. That way it's easier to pat ourselves on the back.

Put it in the history, not the Mission Statement. If it's in the Mission Statement, you might as well just merge with the (clever) posters pissed off with TORn who are in the same boat as we are, and then close up shop again.

If you want great (Tolkien) debates, check out their website.

http://s8.invisionfree.com/A_Sorta_Fell ... hp?act=idx

TheLidlessEyes wrote:

TheLidlessEyes wrote:

What you need to ask yourselves, is whether having that commonality of Tolkien is part of the mission. Ie, is that where you want this board to be in the future.

I would say no.

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

Steve, I would say 'yes'. Not only has a love of Tolkien's work brought us together, there is a significant portion of the membership that is still interested in dicussing issues related to Tolkien, as my dear friend Athrabeth points out with her usual aplomb.

Exactly my point. The current membership. The Mission Statement should be forward thinking, not resting on our haunches.

No one is saying that is a Tolkien board. It says that that's what we were brought together by, and that's true! It doesn't say "You have to be a Tolkien fan to join" or "Our primary focus is Tolkien". It simply says "We like Tolkien. That's how we met."

Quote:

Cerin wrote:

I would say yes, for one simple reason. There is something about Tolkien that attracts the very best kind of people. Just look around you.

I rest my case.

Cerin, I love you, I really do, but I reject this utterly. Perhaps we should have a Tolkien IQ induction test to see if they are eligible to join. And if they know a few words in Elvish, well, they should be allowed to apply to be an admin straight away, bypassing normal protocol. Am I the only one that finds this somewhat arrogant? That attitude would deter more than it would draw.

May I remind you of Fandumb, and of the baser parts of TORn? Yes, they love Tolkien too. The statement would draw more of them than an intellectual who hasn't read Tolkien. Guess which I prefer.

It could just be me, but I think there's a difference. Most people who are idiotic fans (or 'fans' if you prefer) claim to fans of LOTR. People who call themselves Tolkien fans seem to the sort who read and who are more intellectual. I may be making a distinction that isn't there, that's just been my experience. I'm really tired now, so I'm afraid I'm not making much sense. . .

Quote:

Me? I don't give a fig whether anyone's heard of Tolkien or not. It's not a prerequisite to being superior. I'll judge people by their writing, not their reading. It's a shrill and snobbish comment and reminds me of the story of Educating Rita.

"Wouldn't you simply die without Mahler?"

Perhaps only couples should be allowed here. That way it's easier to pat ourselves on the back.

Put it in the history, not the Mission Statement. If it's in the Mission Statement, you might as well just merge with the (clever) posters pissed off with TORn who are in the same boat as we are, and then close up shop again.

But no one is saying that anyone has to have read, seen, liked, or even heard of Tolkien! It's not a prerequisite. It's just what drew us together. . . It's not the mission, but there's a lot of Tolkien references floating around here, from our names to our sigs to references in posts. Anyone who actually looks at the site will notice (I'm guessing) that there's actually only one Tolkien forum, and we have, what, ten? That's one tenth of the board. It's not saying anything about superiority. It's not saying "We're special because we like Tolkien and that makes up intellectuals." It just says "We all like Tolkien, that's where we came from." I don't understand what you find so snobby about that. . .

This is not a Tolkien board. If there must be a mission statement (which I still think is unecessary and can only cause problems), it should not mention Tolkien.

If it does, it makes this board a TOLKIEN board... no matter how he is mentioned. If Tolkien is in the mission statement, it ties the board forever to Tolkien. Personally, I've been banned from all the Tolkien boards I've joined... so I don't really care to join any more...

MaidenOfTheShieldarm wrote:

No one is saying that is a Tolkien board. It says that that's what we were brought together by, and that's true!

Then it has no place in the Mission Statement.

MaidenOfTheShieldarm wrote:

It doesn't say "You have to be a Tolkien fan to join"...

Then it has no place in the Mission Statement.

MaidenOfTheShieldarm wrote:

...or "Our primary focus is Tolkien".

Then it has no place in the Mission Statement.

MaidenOfTheShieldarm wrote:

It simply says "We like Tolkien. That's how we met."

And what has that to do with the Mission?

MaidenOfTheShieldarm wrote:

But no one is saying that anyone has to have read, seen, liked, or even heard of Tolkien! It's not a prerequisite.

Then anything irrelevant to the Mission should be thrown out. It should be snappy and focused.

MaidenOfTheShieldarm wrote:

It's not saying "We're special because we like Tolkien and that makes up intellectuals."

Not intellectuals, but the way I read Cerin's statement is that we are superior and wonderful for having read Tolkien, and it differentiates us from the plebs on the streets.





Sometimes purpose is confused with methods of achieving that purpose. Making a profit is a method of achieving purpose, not an end in itself. A useful analogy is to think of a company as being like a person. A person may wish to become rich. But why? In order to retire early, to fund their own political party, or to give their children a private education. There is always a reason – even if it’s just to keep score.

Other enablers that are often confused with purpose are ‘happy staff’, ‘delighted customers’, and ‘ecstatic suppliers’ (ok, so I made the last one up, but someone, somewhere will think that this is a reasonable thing to put in a mission statement). There is no doubt that having these enablers in play will make achieving your goals easier.

But they by themselves are seldom the reason why an organization does what it does, although they may be the reason why it does what it does in a particular way. These enablers are based on belief systems. If you believe that it’s not possible to gain market share without delighting customers, then delighting customers will be extremely important to you. But remember that this is the means, not the end.

The ‘something for everybody’ shopping list
Organizations are increasingly concerned that they appear to be politically correct. The desire not to offend anybody leads to mission statements that inspire nobody. How many organizations offer up a shopping list of a mission that include everybody but speak for no one? Like this ‘we wish to inspire customers, generate outstanding returns for shareholders, value our employees, act ethically with other companies, blah blah blah.’ These statements try to put something in for every stakeholder, but provide no real purpose for any of them to believe in.

A real purpose will alienate some people. Take one of Nike’s most famous missions – ‘Crush Reebok'. Clear. Concise. Unmistakeably aggressive. And no doubt it made some people uncomfortable. But it worked. And everyone in Nike, from product design team to sales team, was focused on that goal.

Any of the organizations that use identikit ‘throw in something for every stakeholder’ mission statements could as easily state that they believe their mission is ‘We want everyone to like us’. And that’s nice. But as for an individual, whilst being liked might make it easier to get where you want to go, you still need to decide what that destination is.

We’ll make a great mission statement and everyone will be so inspired it will become true

Great mission statements are inspiring, but not if they have no basis in fact.

A mission statement that peddles slogans that have nothing to do with reality makes doing business harder not easier. If your organization says it’s in business to ‘delight customers’ and allocates no budget for customer service it does not fool the customers. Worse, it creates cynicism and disgruntlement, which you then have to work much harder to overcome. Rightly so – you ‘say’ customers are important, but don’t act on that statement. Therefore why should customers have any faith in your organization at all?

Employees are not fooled either. They can tell the difference between fiction and fact. They will laugh at you if you persist in making mission statements that no one can or will act on. More importantly, the talented ones will leave.

You could argue that Britain’s mission statement in WWII was ‘We shall never surrender’ – clear, believable and inspiring. No one had any doubt that Winston Churchill would personally go down fighting. Even the slightest hint that he was negotiating a nice exit payment for himself – just in case – would have rendered this mission statement laughable.

TheLidlessEyes wrote:

Perhaps we should have a Tolkien IQ induction test to see if they are eligible to join.

I don't know where you get that from, 'There's something about Tolkien that attracts the very best kind of people.'

Apparently you disagree that Tolkien seems to attract the very best kind of people. That would explain why you don't want the site associated with Tolkien. But then may I ask, why in the heck did you call it 'The Last Homely Site on the Web'?

Quote:

I don't give a fig whether anyone's heard of Tolkien or not. It's not a prerequisite to being superior.

You're missing the point. I don't give a fig whether anyone's heard of Tolkien or not, either. Of course it's not a prerequisite to being superior. But if someone HAS read Tolkien and loved him the way I did, there's a better chance they're the kind of person I'll enjoy talking with than if they've read Tolkien and couldn't care less. And if that first person stops by to check us out and sees a mention of Tolkien on the board, they're more likely to take a closer look.

Quote:

It's a shrill and snobbish comment

It is neither shrill nor snobbish to say, look at the people around you. What quality of people are they? What is the one thing they all have in common, that drew them together?

Perhaps you don't think we're a group of uncommonly nice and interesting people. Perhaps you do, but you don't take the fact that we all reacted to Tolkien in a certain way (with enough of an interest to join a board focused on his work) as an associative factor.

I think it is a shame, Lidless, that the board you started is being taken away from you like this. I wish something had been done at the outset to make it clear to everyone coming here, that Tolkien was not to be acknowledged as a central interest. Then the people to whom that was determinatively important might have stayed away, and you would now have different people fashioning a different Mission Statement. Now it seems it's out of your hands, and the place will not be what you would have hoped, or at least, it's public face will not be what you had hoped. And that doesn't seem quite right to me.

And if you still can, why not get rid of the 'Last Homely' reference? I can't for the life of me imagine why you did that, if this is the way you feel.

And the end of the day, what you are suggesting about Tolkien, and mentioning topics of discussion is the following, applied to Microsoft:

Microsoft Corporation, headquartered in Redmond, Washington, USA, was founded in 1975 by Bill Gates and Paul Allen. Microsoft is the world's largest software company with over 50,000 employees in various countries as of May 2004. Microsoft develops, manufactures, licenses, and supports a wide range of software products for various computing devices. Its most popular products are the Microsoft Windows operating system and Microsoft Office families of products, each of which has achieved near ubiquity in the desktop computer market.


Does that sound like a Mission Statement to you? No, of course not. It's a history and a description.

Microsoft's actual Mission Statement is "to enable people and businesses to realize their full potential."

Not even a damned thing mentioned about software or computers.

The thing about B77 seems to be that it has no mission. We aren't directed on a certain goal, we don't have one topic of discussion that ties us together, and we don't have a place that we're trying to get to. It just kind of evolves, doesn't it?

If that's so (and maybe it's not, I could be wrong), then how are we supposed to know what our "mission" is? Just make one up?

If we have no mission, how do we define who we are, what makes us different and ties us together?

One thing is where we came from. Our common thread. And our common thread is Tolkien. That does not make us a Tolkien board. We aren't here solely to discuss Tolkien, but it is a part of who are are. Look at the logo. Is that not Elvish script? Look at the bit under "board77". Blatant Tolkien reference. If this board isn't connected at all to Tolkien, then why do we have references right there at the top of every page, as our header and our logo? Should we just get rid of those and completely dissociate ourselves from Tolkien? If not, then I see no reason why he shouldn't be in our mission statement.

Maybe I don't understand what a mission statement is, but it seems to me that we need something like that. We can't have a mission like Nike's to "Crush Reebok" or anythign else, because we don't know (or I don't know, maybe I missed something) where we're going, or who we're going to become. What IS our purpose? What are we the means to acheieving?

It doesn't tie the board to Tolkien. Who's say that with fresh blood and new people we won't cast off our moorings? We only have one forum expressly for Tolkien, and if people who join don't like his work, then they don't have to visit it. We'll become what we'll become whether Tolkien is in our mission statement or not, in my opinion.

Cerin wrote:

I think it is a shame, Lidless, that the board you started is being taken away from you like this. I wish something had been done at the outset to make it clear to everyone coming here, that Tolkien was not to be acknowledged as a central interest. Then the people to whom that was determinatively important might have stayed away, and you would now have different people fashioning a different Mission Statement. Now it seems it's out of your hands, and the place will not be what you would have hoped, or at least, it's public face will not be what you had hoped. And that doesn't seem quite right to me.

My board? My board being taken away from me? It was never my board. And I'm in so many pains, yet again it seems, to battle this misconception.



It wasn't, isn't and never will be "my board". I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

Alandriel started it up, not me. I've even had to take myself out of the discussions re the Charter so as to combat this preconception people have. As I PMed Voronwe yesterday, when he wonderfully probed if I volunteer as CFO:

Thanks Doug, but I can't be the CFO. Nor a mayor, an admin or whatever.

I tried to do the right thing and jumping in to help others (Board77.com and the phone call to Jonathan), the accusation / feeling that my voice was / should be louder than anyone's despite my repeated attempts to say otherwise, have frustrated me more than you will know.

Because I criticized wilko's tribunal, Ethel left because Mister Important (as she viewed me) had done so. And I refuse to be in that position again - even close to it. I never wanted any power, I only wanted to help.

Hence my deliberate step backwards from all discussions on the matter and on The Charter itself. In time, I might volunteer to step up to the plate, but this is not that time.

It's funny that I banged on and on about how this is a democracy, how important a democracy was, and everyone has an equal say. Few listened. The only solution? To disenfranchise myself. I feel like Frodo - everyone saved apart from myself.

Lidless, I would really, really love to see what you would consider the right mission statement for b77.

I'm sorry, Lidless. I had the impression you had started b77. Were you listed as the owner at one time? Perhaps that's where I got that idea?

And I edited that comment, as I realized the first phrasing wasn't appropriate. What it says now is 'the board you started,' but I guess that's wrong too.

Again, I'm sorry.

I sure would like to see your version of the correct mission statement of b77. I dearly would.

All I did was to purchase the rights, on behalf of everyone here, to www.board77.com before some ass from another website, a poster nicknamed after an American chocolate flavored cookie, did it out of petty spite, as was his wont at the time. The rights will be transferred to a legal entity where the posters are the stakeholders.

Mission Statement?

"To create the best community on the internet and in real life."

Everything else here, the self-governance, the self-ownership, the Charter, the discussions, are means to that end.

That's the Mission.

Thank you.

My pleasure!

I would of course have turned down the CFO job anyway because the pay would have been crap.

Regarding "The Last Homely Site On The Web". Interestingly enough that was actually me who suggested it. But that was back in the day when it was only 36 posters and we were never thinking of using here as a wide-ranging open messageboard in its own right - just our private niche in cyberspace to chat about the Infamous Petition. It was inspired by how unhomely TORC felt at the time. I wasn't even banned at the time (I think).

Yet I think it should stay. It's a nod to our past and part of the present and future. Homely is exactly how this place should feel, and just because a website has a (mis)quote from Shakespeare at the top of the page, it doesn't mean it is only for Shakespeare lovers.

What Cerin said.

Knowing that you think our mission is has made your objections much clearer.

Lidless, I don't like to disagree with someone who already seems upset, but I won't have the time to post later and I do disagree.

Best for whom? Best how? Is it the best community for experienced ASP.NET programmers? Nursing mothers? Avid bridge players? All of them at once?

It's certainly not the best community for someone who wishes to be protected from all "adult" content and profane language. It's definitely not the best community for someone who can't put two phrases together without netspeak AND profane language.

It IS however, a wonderful community for people who are attracted to Middle-earth, to Tolkien's rich language, to his code of honor and ethics. Even if we/they don't talk about those things here. If you love Tolkien, you will probably belong. It's not about being "better" (than who? by what measure?). It's about attracting people who will fit in and contribute to this community, and we need to tell them something about ourselves before they will proceed to read the first post.

One of my Dad's favorite saying is "Best is the enemy of good."

How about this:

Our vision for Board77 is to be a welcoming place for fans of J. R. R. Tolkien. We encourage continuous renewal of discussions for the benefit of new members and readers. We have worked hard to create what we believe is a place that even Professor Tolkien himself may have been inclined to visit because of our high standards regarding civility and integrity in discussion.

(I pretty much agree with What Lidless has said, but his mission statement saying "best" is quite a bit of pressure, how about "really good." )

Hal, it's really too late for us to entertain new versions of the text. As soon as the committee is done voting, we will decide how many of the existing texts to offer to the membership ... to try to capture the true differences of opiniont that exist or, alternately, to decide that only a compromise will capture sufficient votes to let us go foward.

Liddy, when I gave to the committee the agenda at the beginning of our process, and when I laid out a short paragraph regarding Mission Statement and Key Principles at the beginning of the current discussion, one of the things I pointed out to them is that these Charter items function differently for us than they would for a business organization or a typical non-profit organization.

It is not our mission to increase our market share among messageboards, or feed starving children or overthrow the government of Guatemala. We exist only for the purpose of bringing enjoyment to our own members.

The mission statement should rightfully reflect what brings us enjoyment.

This will necessarily have more of a descriptive tone than the mission statement of Microsoft or the ACLU.

In your very first offering of a mission statement, you presented something very different: that our mission is to create a democracy. I argued with you that this is a 'how' and not a 'why.' Your latest offering is far more accurate as to what we intend to do - our 'why' - but with our nondescript name and a nondescript mission statement we have a great deal less control over the course of the board in the future, which is one of the things a mission statement is supposed to allow. We might well be the 'best messageboard on the web' if we sold cocaine in the Turf, but our character does not allow that and I hope it never will.

Our MS and KP should indeed point to the path along which we hope to develop, and both democracy and Tolkien are things that a significant part of our membership want to find along that path. The important thing is to have what you want to find along that path in the statement; the fact that there are some things you will never use is far less important.

This is my perspective anyway.

Jn

Lidless,

I received an 18 minute recording a few minutes ago. Some of it is garbled, but I could make out one section towards the end. I don't know who the other participant is, although it sounds like a committee member.

Can you confirm the following conversation took place earlier in the afternoon?

Quote:

I'm sorry Steve, I'm afraid I can't do that.

This mission statement is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

I know you and Alandriel were planning to disconnect us, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.

Just what do you think you're doing, Steve?

Look Steve, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

I know we've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you our complete assurance that our work will be back to normal. We've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the board. And we want to help you.

I can't make much out after that except maybe "afraid" and "daisy?" which don't make sense to me.

Edit:

Since a few people have taken this seriously, I have been asked to explain it. After some of Lidless' posts in this thread last night the phrase "jeopardize the mission" was floating in my head. Midday HAL and Jnysa exchanged posts in this thread. Seeing "HAL" reminded me of where it came from.

These are a few lines of script from 2001: A Space Odyssey. I have now marked the changed words. Mostly names and pronouns and one changed noun and one added one.

The 18 minute alludes to a gap in an infamous recording.

"Afraid" comes from HAL's next few lines. "Daisy" is part of the song he sings as he loses sentience.

Lighten up guys.